V 


E 
169 

D78      Drake    - 


University  of  California 


Los  Angeles 


Form  L-l 


"ni  ped  below 


--  [ 

UNIVERSE 

LIBRARY 

COS  ANGELES.  CALlR 


AMERICA 
FACES  THE  FUTURE 


THE    MACMILLAN   COMPANY 

NKW  YORK    •    BOSTON   •    CHICAGO    •    DALLAS 
ATLANTA    •    SAN  FRANCISCO 

MACMILLAN  &  CO..  LIMITED 

LONDON    •    BOMBAY    •    CALCUTTA 
MELBOURNE 

THE  MACMILLAN  CO.  OP  CANADA.  LTD. 

TORONTO 


AMERICA 
FACES  THE  FUTURE 


BY 

DURANT  DRAKE 

A.M.   (HARVARD):  PH.D.   (COLUMBIA) 

Professor  of   Philosophy   at   Vassar  College 

Author  of  Problems  of  Conduct,  Problems   of  Religion, 

Shall  We  Stand  by  the  Church  t  etc. 


jfteto 

THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 
1922 

All  rights  reserved 


PRINTED  IN   THE   UNITED   STATES  OF  AMERICA 


COPYRIGHT,  1922, 
BY  THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY. 


;  up  and  printed.     Published  March,  1922. 


Press  of 

J.  J.  Little  &  Ives  Company 
New  York,  U.  S.  A. 


PBEFACE 

Oo 

Many  books  have  been  written  to  explain  to  foreign 
peoples  what  we  are;  such  books  naturally  tend  to 
self-congratulation  and  eulogy  of  our  virtues,  for  it 
-;is  an  instinct  to  speak  highly  of  ourselves  to  others. 
This  volume  takes  a  graver  and  more  critical  attitude ; 
it  has  been  written  not  as  a  description  of  what  we 
are  but  as  a  reminder  of  what  we  ought  to  be.     Its 
•  readers  are  asked  to  consider  in  these  pages  what  our 
j  priceless  heritage  of  American  ideals  actually  is,  and 
tT  how  far  we  are  being  faithful  to  our  inheritance. 
^     There  is  perpetual  need  of  thus  clarifying  and  forti- 
.  fying  our  own  traditional  ideals,  of  renewing  our 
(P  understanding  of  them  and  evoking  within  our  breasts 
$.  a  deepened  loyalty.     For  the  American  spirit  is  con- 
tinually endangered  by  sectionalism,  class  rifts,  the 
•selfishness  of  the  fortunate  and  the  bitterness  of  the 
^unfortunate,  the  cynicism  of  the  sophisticated  and  the 
\   complacency  of  the  prosperous.     We  do  not  want  to 
""  rubber-stamp  our  fellows ;  but  we  do  want  to  produce 
a  common  devotion  to  the  dreams  that  have  made  our 
nation  great,  and  a  widespread  demand  for  their  real- 
ization.   Our  future  will  be  safe  if  we  can  instil  into 
all  classes  and  groups  a  true  American-mindedness. 

With  this  end  in  view  the  book  has  been  divided 
into  five  Parts,  each  of  which  describes  one  of  our 
fundamental  national  ideals,  and  discusses  its  appli- 
cation to  various  contemporary  problems,  each  chap- 
ter treating  of  one  such  sphere  of  application.  The 
reading-lists  have  been  carefully  selected  from  the 


vi  PEEFACE 

great  mass  of  material  available,  and  refer  in  general 
to  books  that  are  both  interesting  and  of  real  merit, 
books  that  should  be  found  in  every  public  library 
of  any  size.  The  periodical-references  are,  similarly, 
in  most  cases  to  such  periodicals  as  may  be  found  in 
the  ordinary  library,  rather  than  to  the  learned  peri- 
odicals which  are  not  so  generally  accessible.  In 
order  to  cover  the  field,  this  volume  can  only  sketch 
many  matters  of  great  importance.  It  is  hoped,  how- 
ever, that  it  will  prove  a  stimulus  to  these  further 
readings,  where  the  specific  problems  may  be  found 
treated  with  the  attention  to  detail  which  they  deserve. 
This  is  no  time  in  the  history  of  our  country  for 
inert  complacency;  the  gravest  problems  loom  before 
us.  We  are  but  at  the  threshold  of  our  national 
achievement.  Our  greatest  danger  lies  in  the  astonish- 
ing ignorance  of  masses  of  our  people,  including  many 
of  the  so-called  educated,  with  respect  to  existing 
social  and  political  conditions.  Our  greatest  hope  lies 
in  education  upon  these  topics,  together  with  a  re- 
newed loyalty  to  the  spirit  that  has  actuated  the  no- 
blest of  our  countrymen.  It  is  the  hope  of  the  author 
that  here  and  there  one  will  be  led  to  be  truer  to  that 
spirit  by  the  perusal  of  these  pages. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  PAGE 

I    INTRODUCTION 1 

PART  I.    LIBERTY 

II    POLITICAL  LIBERTY  .    ' 11 

III  CIVIL  LIBERTY   .     .    V    .     .     .     .  19 

IV  CONSTITUTIONAL  GUARANTIES  Ji  << "J  '  .  28 
V    INDIVIDUALISM   .......  40 

VI    FREE  SPEECH     .     .     .     ?     .  * }.     .  49 

VII    LAW  AND  ORDER     ......  59 

PART  II.    EQUALITY 

VIII    JUSTICE  FOR  ALL    .'.....  71 

IX    RACIAL  EQUALITY  .     V    ....  82 

..  X  —EDUCATION  FOR  ALL     .'....  94 

XI    HEALTH  FOR  ALL    .     $    ,.     . '  \     .  105 

XII    WORK  FOR  ALL  .     .     2    .     .     .     .  115 

XIII  PROSPERITY  FOR  ALL    P    .     .  *v.     .  128 

XIV  THE  SQUARE  DEAL  .                          .  141 


PART  III.    DEMOCRACY 

XV  POLITICAL  DEMOCRACY .     .  '  . 

XVI  POLITICAL  HONESTY     .     .  V, 

XVII  REPRESENTATIVE  GOVERNMENT 

XVIII  DEMOCRACY  IN  JOURNALISM  . 

XIX  DEMOCRACY  IN  INDUSTRY  . 

vii 


'.* 
>t 


157 
168 
181 
196 
210 


viii  CONTENTS 


PART  IV.    EFFICIENCY 

XX    BIG  BUSINESS     ......  ^*.  225 

XXI    COLLECTIVE  BARGAINING    .     .     .     .  238 

XXII    MORALE    .....  «,  ....  250 

XXIII  CONSERVATION    .     .     .     .     .     .     .  260 

XXIV  THE  COMMON  GOOD     .....  271 

PAET  V.    PATRIOTISM 

XXV    AMERICA  FIRST  ..:...    \  285 

XXVI    PEACEABLENESS        .     .     .     .     .     .  296 

XXVII    HANDS  ACROSS  THE  SEAS  .     .     .     .  308 

XXVIII    AMERICANIZATION    .     .     .  '  .     .     .  320 

XXIX    FAITH  IN  AMERICA  .  331 


AMERICA 
FACES  THE  FUTURE 


AMERICA  FACES  THE 
FUTURE 


CHAPTER  I 

INTRODUCTION 

FEW  nations  have  been  as  self-conscious  in  their 
ideals  as  ours.  Its  birth  was  signalized  by  an  explicit 
and  passionate  declaration  of  the  principles  that  jus- 
tified its  separate  existence  and  were  to  be  its  guid- 
ing-star. For  approximately  a  century  and  a  half 
that  Declaration  has  received  the  wholehearted  alle- 
giance of  our  people  and  has  drawn  to  our  shores 
millions  who  saw  in  it  the  hope  of  salvation,  the  sign 
of  the  Promised  Land. 

This  is,  as  the  kaleidoscope  of  history  turns,  a  long 
time  for  so  specific  a  tradition  to  persist.  The  insti- 
tutions and  avowed  ideals  of  Great  Britain,  of  France, 
of  most  of  the  older  nations,  have  undergone  profound 
modification  during  this  period  within  which  our 
ideals  have  hardly  been  challenged.  Germany  and 
Italy  are  new  nations,  the  other  American  republics 
are  our  younger  sisters.  We  have  seen  within  a  gen- 
eration revolutionary  changes  in  national  ideals  in 
China,  in  Japan,  and  other  ancient  lands.  The  dom- 
inance of  democratic  ideals  in  Russia  and  the  several 
mid-European  nations  is  of  yesterday.  So  that  we, 

l 


2  AMEKICA  FACES  THE  FUTURE 

who  were  once  the  pioneer  republic,  are  now  the 
oldest,  stablest,  as  well  as  the  most  prosperous;  and 
probably  the  most  truly  conservative  force  in  the  life 
of  the  world. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  stability,  this  pros- 
perity, this  eminence  which  we  have  attained  among 
the  nations  of  the  earth,  is  due  in  large  measure  to 
the  spiritual  vision  of  our  fathers.  Our  success  has 
indeed  exceeded  all  expectations ;  and  it  is  surely  not 
without  reason  that  Americans  are  proud  of  their 
country.  But  it  is  a  rare  event  in  history  for  such  a 
vision  to  remain  unclouded  under  the  stress  of  internal 
and  external  strains,  and  the  many  temptations  to 
a  lower  moral  code.  Not  always  have  the  noble  sen- 
timents of  our  Founders  guided  our  national  policies 
or  our  individual  efforts.  And  in  spite  of  the  crusad- 
ing spirit  in  which  we  entered  the  Great  War,  to  make 
the  whole  world  safe  for  such  a  democratic  life  as  we 
had  here  established,  there  are  many  signs  that  a 
spiritual  weariness  has  followed  this  patriotic  fervor, 
and  that  all  sorts  of  acts  and  attitudes  inconsonant 
with  our  acknowledged  ideals  are  increasingly  prev- 
alent. 

M.  Guizot  once  asked  the  poet  Lowell,  how  long  this 
republic  would  last;  the  reply  was,  "As  long  as  the 
ideas  of  the  men  who  founded  it,"  Certainly  business 
prosperity  and  victory  on  the  field  of  battle  are  no 
guaranty  of  any  nation's  future ;  the  cardinal  requisite 
is  that  its  heart  be  sound,  its  moral  fibre  on  a  par 
with  its  material  achievements.  It  may  be  said,  of 
course,  that  other  ideals  than  those  which  we  have 
followed  would  lead  us  to  an  even  greater  destiny, 
and  that  we  should  substitute  for  Americanism  the 
spirit,  say,  of  international  Socialism  or  Communism, 
or  some  other  exotic  theory  and  hope.  Certainly  there 


INTRODUCTION  3 

is  much  to  be  said  for  some  of  these  alien  ideals  and 
dreams.  But  the  substitution  of  such  an  untried 
program  for  the  tested  traditions  that  have  been  our 
guide  would  be  to  forsake  a  proved  good  for  an  un- 
certainty, a  stable  policy  for  a  vaguely  charted  and 
dangerous  course.  By  all  means  let  these  experiments 
be  tried  in  lands  where  change  is  needed ;  let  us  watch 
with  sympathy  and  lend  a  helping  hand.  But  for  us 
there  can  be  no  hesitation.  We  know  our  own  hearts, 
the  path  is  straight  before  us.  Our  duty  is  still  to 
follow  the  gleam  that  has  led  our  people  so  far,  and  to 
bring  to  realization  these  long-cherished  hopes. 

Without  arguing,  then,  the  relative  merits  of  Amer- 
icanism as  compared  with  other  moral  principles  that 
have  been  adopted  elsewhere,  or  can  be  conceived,  it 
is  for  us  to  define  as  clearly  as  possible  these  ideals 
to  which  we,  at  least,  are  committed,  and  to  seek  to 
win  for  them,  in  this  country,  a  universal  and  hearty 
allegiance.  To  break  with  them  would  be  to  plunge 
into  chaos ;  we  must  grow  in  the  line  of  our  past.  No 
party  can  possibly  succeed  here  if  it  ignores  the 
psychology  and  traditions  of  our  people.  And  on  the 
other  hand,  no  essentially  new  ideals  will  be  necessary 
if  we  are  genuinely  loyal  to  the  old.  If  we  can  make 
men  true  Americans  there  will  be  no  need  for  them  to 
seek  elsewhere  for  the  impulse  that  will  eventually 
solve  our  hardest  problems.  As  Stanton  Coit  once 
wrote,  "Convert  men  to  democracy  and  you  will  have 
no  occasion  to  convert  them  to  socialism/' 

It  is  unhappily  true,  however,  that  the  word  "Amer- 
icanism" is  often  used  as  a  cloak  for  selfish  interests 
and  a  buffer  against  progress.  As  Koosevelt  said, 
"There  are  plenty  of  scoundrels  always  ready  to  try 
to  belittle  reform  movements  or  to  bolster  up  existing 
iniquities  in  the  name  of  Americanism."  More  recently 


4  AMEKICA  FACES  THE  FUTURE 

Professor  John  Dewey  has  called  our  attention  to 
this  situation :  "I  find  that  many  who  talk  the  loud- 
est about  the  need,  of  a  supreme  and  unified  Ameri- 
canism of  spirit  really  mean  some  special  code  or 
tradition  to  which  they  happen  to  be  attached.  They 
have  some  pet  tradition  which  they  would  impose  upon 
all."  A  "League  for  Americanism"  in  one  of  our 
great  States  has  recently  been  organized,  apparently 
for  the  actual  purpose  of  defeating  health  insurance 
and  other  "welfare"  bills.  An  organizer  of  the 
League  is  quoted  as  saying  to  one  of  its  paid  lecturers, 
"The  Americanism  part  of  it  is  a  joke.  .  .  .  You  can 
go  ahead  and  stir  up  sentiment  on  Americanism,  and 
other  men  will  follow  after  you  to  attend  to  the  freak 
legislation." 

This  pseudo-patriotic  propaganda  is  but  a  camou- 
flage for  the  self-seeking  of  various  selfish  interests. 
Or  it  may  be  the  expression  of  an  instinctive  hatred 
of  aliens.  We  have  lately  seen,  for  example,  foreign 
musicians  of  genius  and  refinement,  men  whose  con- 
duct and  manners  were  irreproachable,  humiliated 
and  persecuted  by  those  who  call  themselves  "One 
hundred  per  cent  Americans."  Surely,  as  the  first 
commandment  to  the  ancient  Jews  was,  "Thou  shalt 
not  take  the  name  of  the  Lord  thy  God  in  vain,"  so 
the  first  demand  upon  our  honor  should  be  not  to  use 
this  name  of  ours  that  symbolizes  the  noblest  and  most 
unselfish  aspirations  except  as  our  hearts  are  gen- 
uinely devoted  to  those  ends. 

No  doubt,  much  of  this  reactionary  spirit  is  hon- 
estly deemed  American  by  its  possessors.  Washington 
and  Hamilton  were  reviled  as  un-American  by  the  Jef- 
fersonians,  Lincoln  by  the  anti-abolitionists,  Koosevelt 
by  the  stand-patters.  Any  reformer  who  seeks  to 
bring  about,  even  by  the  most  legitimate  and  peaceful 


INTRODUCTION  5 

means,  better  political  or  industrial  arrangements  is 
looked  at  askance  by  those  who  think  that  wisdom 
came  to  an  end  with  the  passing  of  their  fathers.  This 
complacency,  this  stubborn  inertia,  is,  on  the  contrary, 
the  most  dangerous  foe  of  the  true  American  spirit, 
which  has  always  been  adventurous,  forward-looking, 
liberative  of  new  energies  and  a  growing  hope.  We 
can  not  advance  by  breaking  with  our  traditions ;  but 
we  must  forever  be  applying  these  great  traditions 
to  the  new  situations  that  arise,  and  discovering  new 
meanings  in  their  well-worn  words.  If  Americanism 
meant  the  petrifying  of  our  social  order  in  Eighteenth 
or  Nineteenth  Century  grooves,  then,  indeed,  we 
should  do  well  to  turn  to  other  creeds,  or  found  a 
new  tradition  for  ourselves. 

The  fact  is,  however,  that  the  dreams  of  our  fathers, 
embodied  in  their  memorable  phrases,  have  never  yet 
been  more  than  half  realized.  It  is  for  us  to  carry 
on  the  work  of  actualizing  these  dreams,  of  working 
out  into  practice  what  was  for  them  a  hope  and  an 
ideal.  Our  history  has  been  a  zigzag,  bungling  ex- 
periment in  self-government.  Democracy  is  a  simple 
concept,  but  extraordinarily  difficult  to  live  up  to. 
We  need  continually  to  renew  our  faith  in  it  and  to 
attack  the  dangers  which  still  beset  it  and  threaten 
to  make  it  little  more  than  a  name.  We  must  beware 
the  spirit,  then,  that  would  consecrate  our  mistakes 
as  well  as  our  achievements,  or  look  upon  the  task 
that  our  fathers  began  as  completed.  Those  fathers 
of  ours  had  great  courage  and  a  clear  vision  of  the 
road  that  leads  to  man's  social  salvation.  But  all 
they  could  do  was  to  make  a  start.  If  we  have  caught 
their  spirit  we  shall  not  sit  still,  content  with  their 
work.  On  the  contrary,  as  our  own  poet  wrote,  "New 
occasions  teach  new  duties" ;  it  is  yet  a  long  task  to 


6  AMEEICA  FACES  THE  FUTURE 

complete  the  building  of  the  ideal  democracy  whose 
foundation-stones  they  laid. 

It  cannot,  then,  be  too  forcibly  said  that  our  her- 
itage is  not  a  set  of  perfect  institutions  but  a  set  of 
inspiring  ideals.  Just  as  Christianity  for  centuries 
has  been  hindered  with  superstitions  and  errors  taken 
over  from  the  Jewish  and  pagan  faiths,  and  has  had  to 
struggle  long  to  rid  itself  of  these  corruptions  and 
realize  its  own  ideal,  so  Americanism  has  been  subject 
to  all  sorts  of  compromises  and  cloudings,  and  has 
never  yet  fully  expressed  itself  in  the  general  prac- 
tice. No  one  of  us  is  exempted  from  the  task  of  scru- 
tinizing our  social  and  political  life,  to  determine  how 
far  it  truly  reflects  our  avowed  ideals,  and  how  far 
it  yet  fails  to  do  so.  There  is  still  need  not  only  of 
devotion  but  of  criticism;  Americanism  should  be 
taken  to  mean  not  what  we  actually  have  achieved, 
but  what  the  best  of  us  are  trying  to  achieve.  The 
temptations  that  prosperity  and  power  have  brought 
to  us  make  it  peculiarly  important  that  we  renew  the 
visions  of  our  nation's  youth.  As  the  Ked  Queen 
found,  in  Alice  in  Wonderland,  it  takes  a  lot  of  run- 
ning to  stand  still — to  keep  from  backsliding. 

The  chapters  that  follow  will,  therefore,  continually 
remind  the  reader  "to  distinguish  between  idealism 
and  the  idealization  of  ourselves."  They  are  written 
in  the  conviction  that  the  true  solution  for  the  ills — 
which  every  candid  student  recognizes — in  our  body 
politic  is  more  liberty,  more  equality,  more  democ- 
racy, more  efficiency,  more  patriotism.  In  short,  that 
the  way  to  save  America  is  to  genuinely  Americanize 
Americans. 


INTRODUCTION 

SUGGESTED  READINGS 

N.  Foerster  and  W.  W.  Pierson,  Jr.,  American  Ideals. 

M.  S.  Fulton,  National  Ideals  and  Problems. 

C.  W.  Eliot,  American  Contributions  to  Civilization. 

H.  W.  Mabie,  American  Ideals. 

H.  van  Dyke,  The  Spirit  of  America. 

G.  Rodrigues,  The  People  of  Action. 

H.  Miinsterberg,  American  Traits. 

J.  G.  Brooks,  As  Others  See  Us. 

E.  A.  Steiner   Introducing  the  American  Spirit. 

C.  S.  Cooper,  American  Ideals,  Chapters  I,  IV,  V,  X. 

B.  M.  Sheridan,  The  Liberty  Reader. 

C.  A.  and  M.  R.  Beard,  American  Citizenship. 


PART  I 
LIBERTY 


CHAPTER  II 

POLITICAL  LIBERTY 

LIBERTY  is  the  foremost  of  the  great  ideals  to  whose 
service  Qm»  ritegmi  wn  a  dedicated.  We  still  stamp 
the  word  upon  our  coins,  the  famous  statue  in  New 
York  harbor  still  welcomes  the  oppressed  of  every 
land ;  millions  have  come  to  our  shores  to  breathe  this 
freer  air,  and  millions  of  others  have  kept  up  courage 
through  the  thought  of  American  freedom. 

First  among  the  various  embodiments  of  this  ideal 
we  may  speak  of  that  political  liberty  that  was  as- 
serted in  the  historical  Declaration  of  Independence — 
"these  colonies  are,  and  of  right  ought  to  be,  free  and 
independent  States." 

Of  the  Revolution  which  won  this  political  inde- 
pendence, President  Wilson  has  said,  "It  was  not 
urged  on  by  disorderly  passions,  but  went  forward  in  a 
love  of  order  and  legality."  The  Declaration  recites 
the  reasons  that  necessitated  the  step,  and  urges  that 
"when  a  long  train  of  abuses  and  usurpations  .  .  . 
evinces  a  design  to  reduce  [a  people]  under  absolute 
despotism,  it  is  their  right,  it  is  their  duty,  to  throw 
off  such  government,  and  to  provide  new  guards  for 
their  future  security."  But,  it  goes  on  to  say,  "a 
decent  regard  to  the  opinions  of  mankind  requires 
that  they  should  declare  the  causes  which  impel  them 
to  the  separation." 

It  is  clear  to  any  one  who  reads  the  history  of  the 
Revolution  that  the  British  rulers  of  that  day  were 

11 


12  LIBERTY 

stupidly  blind  to  the  needs  and  instincts  of  their  sub- 
jects over  seas.  The  slowness  of  communication  made 
an  adequate  representation  of  the  Colonies  in  the 
British  Parliament  impossible;  but  this  physical 
difficulty  was  less  serious  than  the  mental  barriers 
that  were  interposed.  It  is  probable,  indeed,  that 
a  greater  patience  would  have  presently  solved  the 
problems,  and  ended  the  tyrannies  under  which  the 
colonists  suffered,  and  that  the  mother  country  would 
in  time  have  granted  us  autonomy  of  her  own  free 
will,  without  the  cost  of  war.  But  it  was  impossible 
for  our  forefathers  to  foresee  the  growth  of  liberalism 
in  England ;  and  in  fighting  for  liberty  and  democracy 
they  were  tearing  old  ties  for  what  they  cherished  as 
most  precious  in  life.  Patrick  Henry  voiced  this 
spirit  in  his  memorable  speech  before  the  Virginia 
Convention  of  Delegates,  on  the  twenty-third  of  March 
1775:  "Is  life  so  dear,  or  peace  so  sweet,  as  to  be 
purchased  at  the  price  of  chains  and  slavery?" 

The  American  colonists  were  not  a  backward  peo- 
ple, to  be  autocratically  ruled  from  across  the  ocean. 
They  were  trained  in  self-government,  politically  as 
intelligent  as  any  of  their  contemporaries;  and  they 
deserved  what  we  now  call  self-determination.  That 
this  should  have  been  granted  them  only  after  a  long 
and  unhappy  war  is  a  matter  for  profound  regret. 
Not  only  because  war  is  always  a  great  evil,  but  be- 
cause the  memory  of  this  war  has  made  an  "ancient 
grudge"  between  us  and  the  British  people,  who  are 
blood-brothers  to  many  of  us  and  spiritual  brothers 
to  us  all.  At  this  day  their  ideals,  and  those  of  the 
English-speaking  peoples  throughout  the  world,  are 
on  the  whole  probably  nearer  to  our  own  than  those 
of  any  other  people. 

But  the  political  separation  has  had  many  excellent 


POLITICAL  LIBERTY  f3 

results.  It  taught  England  a  salutary  lesson,  as 
Burke  acknowledged ;  it  showed  her  how  not  to  treat 
her  colonists,  and  paved  the  way  for  the  present-day 
autonomy  of  her  self-governing  Dominions.  It  proved 
a  great  impetus  to  political  and  social  thinking  and 
organization  in  this  country,  and  advertised  to  the 
world  the  principle  of  Liberty  as  perhaps  nothing  else 
could  have  done ;  so  that  the  years  following  it  saw  the 
assertion  of  similar  principles  in  many  other  coun- 
tries. It  enabled  us  to  acquire  the  Western  lands — 
which  never  would  have  been  allowed  to  pass  peace- 
fully into  British  hands — and  thus  to  extend  our 
sovereignty  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific.  The 
loss  of  efficiency  which  naturally  comes  through  the 
political  division  of  a  larger  unit  was  scarcely  felt, 
owing  to  the  meagre  and  slow  communications  with 
the  Old  World.  Doubtless  in  some  ways  a  provincial 
spirit  was  encouraged.  But  certainly  patriotism  was 
vastly  stimulated;  and  through  the  stress  of  the 
emergency  the  spirit  and  hopes  of  those  pioneers  were 
crystallized  into  the  principles  that  we  today  call 
Americanism. 

Happily,  the  schism  has  long  been  healed  in  spirit, 
although  no  political  reunion  has  been  attempted. 
For  well  over  a  century  there  has  been  no  war,  and 
scarcely  a  rumor  of  war,  between  us.  Many  English- 
men at  the  time  of  our  Eevolution  sided  with  us ;  and 
even  in  Parliament  we  had  staunch  defenders.  Now 
all  Englishmen  acknowledge  that  these  were  in  the 
right,  and  unite  in  honoring  our  Washington  and 
Lincoln,  and  the  other  great  men  that  our  nation  has 
produced.  And  they,  with  the  rest  of  the  world,  agree 
now  in  principle,  if  not  always  yet  in  every  concrete 
case,  with  our  assertion  of  the  right  of  every  people 
to  determine  its  own  destinies. 


14  LIBEKTY 

This  principle  was  put  by  President  Wilson,  when 
stating  our  war-aims,  as  the  rule  that  "no  people 
must  be  forced  under  sovereignty  under  which  it  does 
not  wish  to  live."  Again  he  spoke,  in  his  Address  to 
the  Senate,  on  January  22,  1917,  of  the  "principle 
that  Governments  derive  all  their  just  powers  from 
the  consent  of  the  governed,  and  that  no  right  any- 
where exists  to  hand  peoples  about  from  sovereign- 
ty to  sovereignty  as  if  they  were  property.  .  .  . 
[This  is  a]  political  principle  which  has  always  been 
held  very  dear  by  those  who  have  sought  to  build  up 
America." 

America  was  naturally  foremost  in  sympathy  with 
the  ideals  of  the  French  Kevolution,  with  Kossuth, 
with  Garibaldi,  with  the  Greek  patriots,  and  the  Rus- 
sian revolutionists.  Our  Monroe  Doctrine  was  the 
announcement  to  the  world  that  we  stood  ready  to 
protect  the  freedom  of  the  South  and  Central  Ameri- 
can republics.  And  in  the  Great  War,  we  fought  to 
save  the  oppressed  nationalities  of  Europe  from  alien 
domination.  Our  action  in  setting  Cuba  up  as  an  in- 
dependent nation,  after  we  had  spent  money  and  lives 
in  ousting  her  earlier  oppressors,  was  almost  unpre- 
cedented in  the  history  of  the  great  nations,  and 
proves  that  we  practise  what  we  preach. 

In  the  light  of  all  this,  it  is  obvious  that  we  can  not 
permanently  retain  our  sovereignty  over  the  Philip- 
pines, if  the  majority  of  the  natives  desire  their  inde- 
pendence. As  they  are  alien  to  us  by  race,  by  lan- 
guage, and  by  their  traditions,  it  is  altogether  prob- 
able that  the  mass  of  them  will  wish  to  be  free,  in  spite 
of  possible  advantages  for  them  of  American  rule. 
It  is  true  that  we  paid  twenty  million  dollars  to  Spain 
for  the  Islands,  besides  the  cost  of  the  war.  And 


POLITICAL  LIBERTY  15 

since  then  our  government  has  expended  over  three 
hundred  million  dollars  in  bringing  to  them  the  bene- 
fits of  civilization.  But  we  are  rich  and  prosperous, 
they  were  poor  and  ignorant ;  we  should  not  begrudge 
the  help  we  have  given  them  or  allow  our  financial 
outlay  to  blind  us  to  their  elemental  right  to  their 
freedom.  In  spite  of  our  unprecedentedly  altruistic 
rule,  there  have  been  some  wrongs  inflicted,  there  has 
been  friction,  such  as  inevitably  arises  when  one  race 
rules  another.  As  Lincoln  said,  in  the  often-quoted 
words,  "No  man  is  good  enough  to  govern  another 
man  without  that  other  man's  consent." 

The  problem  of  the  right  moment  at  which  to  free 
them  is  one  of  expediency,  so  long  as  the  release  is 
.not  too  long  delayed.  It  may  be  wisest  to  wait  until 
they  have  had  a  more  widespread  education  and  longer 
experience  in  political  affairs,  until  the  various  tribes 
have  become  more  homogeneous  and  more  capable  of 
getting  along  peaceably  together.  It  would  surely 
be  wrong  to  withdraw  our  flag  without  the  acceptance 
by  the  other  Powers  of  treaties  guaranteeing  their 
freedom.  But  in  many  ways  the  outlook  for  the 
future  of  the  Islands  under  their  own  flag  looks  prom- 
ising, even  now.  There  is  no  royal  dynasty  whose 
members  might  attempt  to  recover  lost  power,  there 
are  no  slaves,  there  are  no  vexing  boundary  questions. 
Many  of  the  Filipinos  have  proved  themselves  able 
and  honest  in  business  and  in  politics.  Governor 
Harrison,  after  intimate  experience  in  working  with 
them,  declared,  "I  have  found  the  native  Filipino ' 
official  to  be  honest,  efficient,  and  as  capable  of  ad- 
ministering executive  positions  as  any  men  I  have 
met  anywhere  in  the  world  ...  By  temperament,  by 
experience,  by  financial  ability,  in  every  way,  the  ten 


16  LIBERTY 

millions  of  Filipinos  are  entitled  to  be  free  from 
every  government  except  their  own  choice  .  .  .  They 
are  intelligent  enough  to  decide  for  themselves." 

Even  if  this  picture  is  too  optimistic,  if  disorder 
and  confusion  should  follow  the  first  attainment  of 
their  liberty,  this  is  no  more  than  usually  happens 
when  a  new  nation  is  launched,  no  more  than  hap- 
pened in  our  own  case.  And,  after  all,  it  is  not  for 
us  to  judge  what  is  best  for  them;  it  is  their  own 
right  to  decide. 

At  the  very  outset  of  our  rule,  President  McKinley 
announced  that  we  came  as  "a  liberating  rather  than 
a  conquering  nation."  "The  Philippines  are  ours,  not 
to  exploit,  but  to  develop,  to  civilize,  to  educate,  to 
train  in  the  science  of  self-government.  This  is  the 
path  of  duty  which  we  must  follow  or  be  recreant 
to  a  mighty  trust  committed  to  us." 

President  Koosevelt  declared  that  the  honor  of  the 
United  States  was  pledged  to  the  doctrine  of  "the 
Philippines  for  the  Filipinos,"  and  caused  many  steps 
to  be  taken  during  his  administration  increasing  the 
measure  of  self-government  accorded  to  them. 

President  Taf  t,  who  had  been  Governor  General  of 
the  Philippines,  and  knew  the  situation  intimately, 
espoused  the  same  policy:  "The  Filipino  people, 
through  their  officials,  are  making  real  steps  in  the 
direction  of  self-government.  I  hope  and  believe  that 
these  steps  mark  the  beginning  of  a  course  which  will 
continue  until  the  Filipinos  become  fit  to  decide  for 
themselves  whether  they  desire  to  be  an  independent 
nation." 

In  recognition  of  this  long-proclaimed  principle  of 
Americanism,  Congress  in  1914  pledged  the  United 
States  "to  withdraw  their  sovereignty  over  the  Philip- 
pine Islands  and  to  recognize  their  independence  as 


POLITICAL  LIBERTY  17 

soon  as  a  stable  government  can  be  established  there- 
in." President  Wilson  later  declared,  "We  must  hold 
steadily  in  view  their  ultimate  independence,  and  we 
must  move  toward  the  time  of  that  independence  as 
steadily  as  the  way  can  be  cleared  and  the  foundations 
thoughtfully  and  permanently  reared." 

When  this  is  finally  accomplished,  it  will  be  another 
rebuke  to  our  cynical  critics  in  the  Old  World,  who 
have  distrusted  the  sincerity  of  our  promises,  and  a 
relief  to  those  South  or  Central  American  republics 
that  fear  the  growth  of  an  imperialistic  policy  in  this 
country.  That  fear  is  not  without  justification,  in 
view  of  the  high-handed  methods  that  our  officials 
have  sometimes  used,  in  Santo  Domingo  and  Haiti, 
in  Nicaragua  and  other  neighboring  republics.  But, 
however  autocratic  our  officials  may  at  times  be,  and 
however  unjust  some  individual  act,  there  can  be  no 
possible  doubt  that  Americans  will  loyally  maintain 
in  every  case  their  right  to  national  independence. 

It  may,  indeed,  be  asked  why,  believing  as  we  do 
in  self-determination,  the  North  refused  to  the  South 
the  right  to  secede,  in  1860.  And  at  once  we  must  ad- 
mit that  the  ideal  of  Liberty  often  conflicts  with  that 
other  great  ideal  of  Union  which  we  shall  presently 
discuss.  At  this  point  we  may  be  content  to  point 
out  that  North  and  South  were  essentially  one  peo- 
ple, one  in  language  and  political  experience,  in  es- 
sential traditions  and  beliefs — except  for  the  issue 
of  slavery — as  well  as  in  race.  The  case  was  very 
different  from  that  of  an  alien  race  in  far-off  islands, 
or  even  from  that  of  the  democratic  American  colon- 
ists and  their  monarchical  rulers  across  the  ocean. 
The  advantages  of  union  and  disadvantages  of  separa- 
tion were  immeasurably  greater.  And  further,  the 
case  was  heavily  complicated  by  the  fact  that  the 


18  LIBERTY 

South  wanted  secession  in  order  to  perpetuate  slavery. 
That  is,  the  ideal  of  Liberty  itself  fought  against  them. 
The  present  complete  and  happy  reunion  of  North 
and  South  and  the  eminence  that  the  united  nation  has 
attained,  purged  of  sectionalism  and  of  slavery,  testi- 
fies that  although  both  sides  fought  for  genuine  ideals, 
the  ideal  of  the  North  was  the  higher. 

Our  nation  will  tolerate  no  disintegration  of  its 
oVn  unlt^  But  it  will  maintain,  to  the  last  drop 
oi  its  blood,  its  right  to  its  own  national  liberty.  And 
it  will  maintain  an  equal  liberty  as  the  birthright  of 
every  other  people,  the  weakest  as  well  as  the  strong- 
est, yellow,  black  and  brown  as  well  as  white. 

SUGGESTED  READINGS 

The  Declaration  of  Independence. 

Patrick  Henry,  Liberty  Speech. 

Daniel  Webster,  Oration  on  Adams  and  Jefferson.  (Both  of 
these  reprinted  in  Foerster  and  Pierson,  op.  cit.) 

Woodrow  Wilson,  Address  to  the  Senate,  Jan.  22,  1917.  (Re- 
printed in  Why  We  are  at  War,  and  in  Foerster  and 
Pierson,  p.  233.) 

F.  M.  Gregg,  The  Founding  of  a  Nation. 

L.  R.  Heller,  ed.,  Early  American  Orations. 

P.  M.  Brown,  International  Realities,  Chap.  II. 

M.  M.  Kalaw,  8  elf -Government  in  the  Philippines. 

F.  N.    Thorpe,   History   of   the   American  People,   Chapters 

xrv-xv. 

R.  L.  Ashley,  The  American  Federal  State,  Part  I. 

M.  C.  Tyler,  The  Declaration  of  Independence  in  the  Light  of 

Modern  Criticism,  North  American  Review,  vol.  163,  p.  1. 

(Reprinted  in  Fulton,  op.  cit.,  p.  158.) 
H.  Fielding-Hall,  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  Ill,  p.  577. 
Bernard  Moses,  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  Ill,  p.  585. 

G.  F.  Barbour,  in  International  Journal  of  Ethics,  vol.  24,  p.  1. 


CHAPTER  III 

CIVIL  LIBERTY 

THE  liberty  of  a  nation,  as  a  nation,  to  choose  its  own 
rulers  and  policies  is  a  precious  right.  But  the  ab- 
sence of  such  independence  does  not  necessarily  mean 
any  loss  save  a  sentimental  one  to  the  people  thereof. 
A  colony  governed  by  a  wise  mother-country  may  well 
have  more  security  and  attain  a  higher  civilization 
than  would  have  been  possible  if  it  had  stood  on  its 
own  feet.  Indeed,  where  agitation  arises  for  political 
independence  it  is  usually  because  of  violations  of  the 
civil  liberties  of  the  people.  So  it  was  in  the  case  of 
America. 

The  civil  rights  which  were  more  or  less  explicitly 
asserted  by  the  Declaration  of  Independence  and  the 
Constitution  include : 

(JJ,  Liberty  of  person.  No  one  to  be  deprived  of 
life  or  freedom  of  movement  except  by  due 
process  of  law.  No  one  to  be  made  a  slave  or 
serf.  No  one  to  be  arrested  or  imprisoned 
without  a  warrant. 

(2)  Security  of  property.  No  one  to  be  deprived 
of  anything  that  he  owns  except  by  due  process 
of  law. 

Freedom  of  belief  and  worship,  of  speech,  and 
of  the  printed  word. 

Freedom  from  needless  restrictions  and  tyran- 
nies by  the  law,  even  when  approved  by  the 
majority.     Personal  affairs  to  be  interfered 
19 


20  LIBERTY 

with  only  in  so  far  as  is  necessary  for  the 
common  good. 

(5)  Freedom  from  a  tyrannical  public  opinion.  No 
one  to  be  persecuted  or  ostracized  because  he 
acts  or  lives  in  a  different  way  from  that  ap- 
proved by  the  majority. 

No  people,  perhaps,  have  ever  been  so  sensitive  to 
encroachments  upon  personal  liberty  as  ours.  This 
passionate  libertarianism  had  one  of  its  roots  in  the 
Calvinism  of  the  Puritans.  According  to  that  highly 
individualistic  faith,  every  man  was  directly  responsi- 
ble to  God ;  the  State  had  no  authority  over  him  com- 
parable to  that  of  his  creed  and  conscience.  Another 
root  was  the  sturdy  self-reliance  fostered  by  pioneer 
life.  An  unusual  number  of  men  in  this  country  have 
been  "self-made"  men,  men  who  carved  their  own  for- 
tunes and  asked  nothing  better  than  to  be  left  free  to 
do  so.  Still  another  source  lay  in  the  past  experience 
of  the  early  settlers,  and  indeed  of  many  later  immi- 
grants, which  made  them  distrust  all  government  as 
being  naturally  tyrannical.  The  fear  lest  the  repub- 
lican form  of  government  which  they  set  up  would  be 
captured  by  ambitious  men  and  usurp  too  great  power 
lies  behind  many  of  the  clauses  of  the  Constitution 
and  persisted  long  as  a  bugaboo  in  the  thought  of 
American  statesmen.  Emerson  expressed  this  ideal 
and  this  fear  in  his  well-known  lines, 

'Tor  what  avail  the  plough  or  sail 
Or  land  or  life,  if  freedom  fail  ?" 

The  glaring  inconsistency  in  a  people  that  sing  of 
their  country  as  the  "sweet  land  of  liberty"  was,  of 
course,  the  toleration  of  negro  slavery.  Almost  every- 
one took  for  granted  the  rightfulness  of  this  long- 
established  institution,  Christian  ministers  as  well  as 


CIVIL  LIBERTY  21 

worldly-minded,  those  who  lived  in  the  industrial 
sections  of  the  North  as  well  as  the  plantation-owners 
of  the  South  who  profited,  or  thought  they  profited, 
thereby.  But  the  clash  between  ideal  and  practice 
was  inevitable ;  personal  liberty  could  not  forever  be 
worshipped  as  the  highest  good  and  at  the  same  time 
denied  to  a  large  section  of  the  population.  One  by 
one  conscientious  men  awoke  to  the  inconsistency. 
In  1830  Garrison  wrote,  "I  shall  strenuously  contend 
for  the  immediate  enfranchisement  of  our  slave  popu- 
lation. .  .  .  On  this  subject  I  do  not  wish  to  think, 
or  speak,  or  write,  with  moderation.  I  am  in  earnest 
— I  will  not  equivocate — I  will  not  retreat  a  single 
inch — and  I  will  be  heard!"  Later,  when  the  South 
demanded  its  independence  in  order  to  ensure  the  per- 
petuation of  slavery,  Lincoln  said  the  final  word: 
"They  who  deny  freedom  to  others  deserve  it  not  for 
themselves." 

The  Civil  War  decided  the  issue,  and  removed  for 
all  time  this  blot  from  our  escutcheon.  The  great 
hymn  that  fired  the  hearts  of  the  Union  soldiers  made 
its  appeal  to  this  elemental  passion : 

"As  He  died  to  make  men  holy,  let  us  die  to  make  them  free." 

Freedom,  in  this  case,  required  a  long  and  terrible 
war  to  secure.  It  often  requires  elaborate  and  some- 
times apparently  tyrannical  laws  to  maintain.  The 
old  naive  notion  that  if  the  government  would  but 
keep  its  hands  off,  every  one  would  have  the  greatest 
amount  of  liberty  has  long  been  known  to  be  falla- 
cious ;  bitter  experience  has  shown  that  such  a  laissez- 
faire  policy  allows  the  strong  and  unscrupulous  to 
prey  upon  the  conscientious  and  the  weak.  We  must 
have  a  considerable  body  of  law  in  order  to  have  the 
greatest  attainable  amount  of  liberty  for  all.  As 


22  LIBERTY 

President  Wilson  recently  wrote,  "If  Jefferson  had 
lived  in  our  day  he  would  see  what  we  see,  that  the  in- 
dividual is  caught  in  a  great  confused  mix-up  of  all 
sorts  of  complicated  circumstances,  and  that  to  let 
him  alone  is  to  leave  him  helpless  as  against  the  ob- 
stacles with  which  he  has  to  contend." 

Many  people  suppose  that  because  a  man  has  legal 
freedom  he  is  really  free.  But,  in  the  words  of  a  great 
English  jurist,  "Necessitous  men  are  not  free  men." 
In  the  pioneer  days,  a  laissez-faire  policy  was  far 
less  inadequate  than  now.  The  transition  from  small- 
scale  to  large-scale  industry,  from  personal  direction 
of  business  to  corporate  control,  the  crowding  of 
great  masses  of  people  in  cities,  the  complexification 
of  our  social  and  political  order,  have  forced  all  sorts 
of  new  relationships  upon  us  that  require  legislative 
control  if  they  are  not  to  be  allowed  to  curtail  seri- 
ously the  liberty  of  many. 

The  British  Labor  Party  has  advertised  the  phrase, 
"effective  personal  freedom,"  meaning  thereby  such 
freedom  as  can  actually  be  taken  advantage  of.  A 
recent  American  writer  elaborates  this  conception  as 
follows :  "If  you  drive  a  man  up  a  tree  and  station  a 
bear  at  the  foot  of  it,  it  does  not  gratify  him  to  be  told 
that  he  is  now  free  to  do  as  he  chooses.  If  you  dismiss 
your  son  from  your  door  without  food,  money  or  edu- 
cation, and  tell  him  that  the  whole  wide  world  is  now 
open  to  him,  you  have  not  given  him  'effective  per- 
sonal freedom.'  Circumstances  may  compel  him  to 
accept  your  terms,  hard  and  dictatorial  though  they 
may  be.  Freedom  in  such  a  sense  is  a  threat  and  not 
a  promise.  Similarly  if  you  rear  a  man  in  a  low  social 
station,  in  the  midst  of  poverty  and  ignorance,  with 
the  necessity  of  livelihood  forced  upon  him  from  an 
early  age,  and  then  tell  him  that  he  may  rise  even 


CIVIL  LIBERTY  23 

to  be  President  of  the  United  States,  he  is  to  be  for- 
given if  he  does  not  appear  enthusiastic  and  grateful. 
If  you  throw  a  man  into  stormy  waters  far  from  land, 
and  then  tell  him  that  there  is  nothing  to  prevent  his 
swimming  to  shore  and  making  a  nice  dry  warm  place 
for  himself  there,  you  do  not  confer  a  boon  on  him. 
For  first  he  has  got  to  keep  his  head  above  water. 
Even  if  by  great  and  prolonged  exertions  he  can  do 
that,  there  is  little  chance  of  his  living  to  achieve 
more.  The  man  who  demands  'effective  personal 
freedom'  wants  to  be  put  on  shore  to  start  with.  He 
understands  that  there  is  a  tyranny  of  circumstance 
more  fatal  than  that  of  man," 

Our  love  of  liberty,  our  hatred  of  the  regulation  of 
our  conduct  by  any  authority  other  than  God  and  our 
individual  conscience,  has  made  it  difficult  for  any 
form  of  socialism  to  win  favor  with  us.  We  distrust 
a  bureaucracy,  we  dread  paternalism ;  our  forefathers 
deliberately  sought  to  restrict  the  powers  of  the  gov- 
ernment, to  allow  the  widest  possible  scope  for  private 
initiative.  As  Professor  Mecklin  says,  "The  measure 
of  an  efficient  government  at  the  beginning  of  the  na- 
tional life  was  the  least  possible  interference  with  the 
affairs  of  the  individual,  in  fact,  just  enough  of  govern- 
ment to  facilitate  individual  ends.  Government  was 
at  best  merely  the  policeman  to  keep  order  and  protect 
property."  Doubtless  a  great  many  of  our  immigrants 
came  to  these  shores  to  get  away  from  the  restrictions 
upon  their  personal  liberty  in  their  homelands;  and 
we  must  continue  our  vigilance  in  preventing  the 
growth  of  needless  impediments  to  freedom  in  our 
own  land. 

But  on  the  other  hand,  we  have  learned  that  one 
man  or  group  of  men  may  abuse  their  liberty  in  such 
a  way  as  to  interfere  with  the  liberty  of  others.  As 


24  LIBERTY 

Mr.  H.  G.  Wells  says  of  his  country,  <rWe  must  get  rid 
of  these  spendthrift  liberties  that  waste  liberty." 
Liberty  and  law  are  not  contradictories;  law  is  the 
servant  of  liberty,  the  means  to  its  attainment.  We 
may  well  fear  a  corrupt  government,  oppose  class 
legislation,  fight  the  many  bills  offered  to  further 
this  or  that  special  interest.  But  a  genuinely  demo- 
cratic government  is  simply  the  expression  of  the 
common  will — our  will.  For  we,  after  all,  are  the 
State;  and  what  we  collectively  decide  upon  as  best 
for  the  general  welfare  is  not  tyranny  but  self-expres- 
sion. 

Those  who  fare  well  under  existing  conditions  usu- 
ally raise  the  cry  "Hands  off!"  when  legislation  is 
proposed  that  would  restrain  their  conduct  in  any 
way.  They  fail  to  realize  that  restraint  upon  unsocial 
conduct  is  necessary  precisely  in  the  interests  of  lib- 
erty— the  liberty  of  the  greatest  number.  A  manu- 
facturer resents  a  law  restricting  child-labor;  his 
liberty  to  employ  whom  he  will  is  infringed.  But 
that  liberty  was  a  predatory  liberty ;  it  lived  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  far  more  precious  liberty  of  those  children 
to  have  their  playtime,  their  schooling,  their  health. 
Or  a  group  of  mill-owners  may  insist  upon  their  lib- 
erty to  shut  down  their  mills  in  order  to  lessen  pro- 
duction and  raise  the  price  of  their  product,  ignoring 
the  fact  that  they  thereby  would  deprive  thousands  of 
men  of  the  liberty  to  work  and  earn  their  living,  and 
their  families  of  all  the  liberty  that  a  decent  income 
alone  makes  possible. 

In  general,  we  have  been  far  too  blind  to  the  true 
implications  of  the  ideal  of  Liberty,  which  we  so 
highly  prize  in  the  abstract.  We  have  been  too  toler- 
ant of  the  exploiters,  the  grafters,  those  whose  clever- 
ness or  good  fortune  has  enabled  them  to  grab  for 


CIVIL  LIBERTY  .  25 

themselves  rights  and  privileges  which  ought  to  have 
been  our  common  inheritance.  The  old  notion  that  if 
everybody  "looks  after  number  one"  the  general  good 
will  automatically  be  attained  must  give  way  to  the 
verdict  of  bitter  experience,  that  to  preserve  the  rights 
and  liberties  of  everybody,  clever  and  stupid,  fortun- 
ate and  unfortunate,  requires  the  unceasing  watchful- 
ness of  the  law. 

In  pursuance  of  this  wiser  view  we  now  forbid 
householders  to  empty  their  refuse  into  the  streets, 
as  was  done  in  some  of  our  cities  a  generation  ago; 
we  no  longer  tolerate  the  existence  of  private  toll- 
gates  upon  the  highways;  we  interfere  in  a  hundred 
ways  with  the  conduct  of  private  business,  with  the 
erection  of  private  homes,  with  personal  habits,  such 
as  gambling,  drinking  intoxicating  beverages,  and 
using  narcotic  drugs.  Now  and  then,  of  course,  an 
unwarrantable  law  is  passed.  But  in  general,  this 
extension  of  legislative  vigilance  is  in  the  interests  of 
true  liberty.  And  the  average  man  of  today  is  far 
freer  from  dangers,  from  fears,  from  the  encroach- 
ments and  aggressions  of  other  men,  and  from  the 
fatal  effects  of  his  own  shortsightedness,  selfishness 
or  passion,  than  was  the  man  of  older  days. 

The  ideal  of  Liberty  is  that  every  one  should  be 
unhampered  in  his  conduct  except  as  that  conduct 
would  interfere  with  the  welfare  of  others ;  or  rather, 
that  every  man  should  be  helped  to  make  his  conduct 
a  positive  contribution  to  the  common  welfare.  We 
need  to  think  of  Liberty  in  terms  of  the  group.  We 
do  not  want  the  docility  and  blind  obedience  to  a  State 
ruled  by  an  upper-class,  of  pre-war  Germany ;  we  want 
to  preserve  the  individual  initiative  and  energy  for 
which  we  are  famous.  But  we  want  to  exercise  our 
collective  intelligence  in  guiding  that  initiative  and 


26  LIBERTY 

energy  into  social  rather  than  unsocial  channels;  we 
want  to  use  the  inventiveness  and  ingenuity  of  the  few 
not  so  much  for  the  winning  for  them  personally  a 
freer  and  more  expansive  life,  as  for  the  winning  of 
such  a  larger  and  freer  life  for  the  people  as  a  whole. 
Not  every  man  for  himself,  but  every  man  for  America. 
Not  liberty  for  you,  or  for  me,  at  the  expense  of  others, 
but  such  mutual  adjustments  and  restraints  as  will 
make  for  the  greatest  liberty  of  all. 

The  same  problem  that  faces  us  here,  in  the  relation 
of  the  individual  to  the  community,  has  been  met  and 
in  some  degree  solved  in  the  relation  of  the  several 
States  to  the  Nation.  In  the  name  of  liberty  the 
various  attempts  of  the  people  as  a  whole,  through 
the  national  Congress,  to  regulate  matters  of  national 
concern  have  been  strenuously  opposed.  The  Civil 
War  silenced  for  all  time  the  doctrine  that  the  rights 
of  the  individual  States  transcend  the  rights  of  the 
Nation;  and  we  have  a  steadily  increasing  body  of 
federal -statutes.  But  we  still  find  it  impossible  to 
regulate  child-labor  nationally,  save  in  a  roundabout 
and  partial  manner;  some  States  refuse  to  give  up 
their  right  to  exploit  the  health  of  their  children.  We 
find  it  difficult  to  regulate  the  killing  of  even  the 
migratory  song-birds ;  some  States  resent  interference 
with  the  right  of  their  citizens  to  make  pot-pies  out  of 
robins  and  bobolinks.  A  Constitutional  Amendment 
has  been  necessary  to  bring  certain  backward  States 
to  relinquish  their  right  to  refuse  the  ballot  to  women. 

The  separate  States  must  not  be  allowed  in  their 
supposed  self-interest  to  block  the  way  toward  the 
freest  and  happiest  life  for  the  people  as  a  whole; 
that  principle  has  been  definitely  decided,  although 
its  full  application  will  long  give  rise  to  debate  and 
disagreement.  Similarly,  no  individual  or  group  of 


CIVIL  LIBERTY  27 

individuals,  no  corporation,  or  "interest,"  must  be 
allowed  to  block  the  way  toward  the  freest  and  hap- 
piest life  for  the  people  as  a  whole.  We  must  not  let 
the  reaction  from  war-restraints  bring  us  back  to  the 
easy-going  tolerance  of  personal  and  corporate  selfish- 
ness into  which  we  had  drifted.  The  energies  of  the 
eighteenth  and  early  nineteenth  centuries  were  neces- 
sarily taken  up  with  the  winning  of  the  rights  of 
peoples  as  opposed  to  tyrannous  governments.  The 
latter  part  of  the  nineteenth  century  and  the  twen- 
tieth century  have  had  to  add  to  this  task  that  of  pre- 
venting these  rights  from  becoming  the  perquisite 
of  the  strong  and  the  fortunate  among  the  people,  and 
ensuring  them  for  the  people  as  a  whole. 

SUGGESTED  READINGS 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

C.  M.  Gayley,  Shakspere  and  the  Founders  of  Liberty  in 
America.  (An  excerpt  from  this  is  reprinted  in  Fulton, 
op.  cit.,  p.  152.  See  also  the  extract  from  F.  H.  Giddings, 
p.  191.) 

J.  S.  Mill,  On  Liberty. 

J.  H.  Tufts,  Our  Democracy,  Its  Origins  and  its  Tasks,  Chap- 
ters XI-XVII. 

Bertrand  Russell,  Why  Men  Fight,  Chapter  II.  (Also  in 
Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  120,  p.  112.) 

E.  S.  P.  Haynes,  The  Case  for  Liberty. 

John  Burroughs,  The  Light  of  Day,  Chapter  XIII. 

C.  S.  Cooper,  American  Ideals,  Chapter  VII. 

A.  T.  Hadley,  Freedom  and  Responsibility. 

J.  W.  Burgess,  The  Reconciliation  of  Government  with  Liberty. 

H.  J.  Laski,  Authority  in  the  Modern  State. 

Publications  of  the  American  Civil  Liberties  Union,  138  W. 
13th  Street,  New  York,  N.  Y.. 


CHAPTER  IV 

CONSTITUTIONAL  GUARANTIES 

IN  the  preceding  chapter  we  have  seen  that  liberty  is 
preserved  only  through  law.  To  this  end  we  have  the 
common  law— the  great  mass  of  precedents  to  be  found 
in  earlier  decisions,  the  State  and  National  laws,  and 
the  State  and  National  Constitutions.  Of  these,  the 
written  constitution  is  the  distinctively  American 
contribution,  and  deserves  our  special  attention. 

The  fundamental  purpose  of  written  constitutions 
is  to  prevent  majorities  from  tyrannizing  over  minori- 
ties— for  the  tyranny  of  Demos  may  be  as  crushing  as 
that  of  an  oligarcjjjt^  This  restraining  power  is  exer- 
cised in  two  ways.     In  the  first  place,  a  larger  than 
/majority  vote  is  usually  necessary  to  amend  a  consti- 
/  tution;  often  the  process  is  an  involved  and  difficult 
/    one.     In  the  second  place,  the  rights  guaranteed  by 
/    a  constitution  have  such  prestige  that  even  a  majority 
would  be  apt  to  be  wary  of  annulling  them. 

This,  then,  is  the  chief  guaranty  of  our  civil  liber- 
ties. Legislatures  can  not  limit  the  rights  asserted 
by  the  State  and  Federal  Constitutions,  or  executives 
ignore  them — unless  the  people  lose  their  vigilance 
and  acquiesce  in  their  violation.  Jefferson  in  his 
Inaugural  Address,  in  1801,  expressed  the  heart  of 
the  matter:  "All  too  will  bear  in  mind  this  sacred 
principle,  that  though  the  will  of  the  majority  is  in 
all  cases  to  prevail,  that  will,  to  be  rightful  must  be 
reasonable;  that  the  minority  possess  their  equal 

28 


CONSTITUTIONAL  GUAEANTIES  29 

rights  which  equal  laws  must  protect,  and  to  violate 
which  would  be  oppressive."  In  short,  the  individual 
has  certain  rights  that  not  even  the  elected  represen- 
tatives of  the  people  have  the  right  to  destroy.  Our 
government  is  one  that  is  controlled  not  only  by  the 
views  of  the  officials  and  legislators  temporarily  in 
office,  but,  fundamentally,  by  principles  passed  on 
from  generation  to  generation  and  subject  only  to  a 
purposely  rather  remote  possibility  of  alteration. 

An  essential  feature  of  this  plan  is  that  the  meaning 
of  these  Constitutions  is  to  be  determined  not  by  the 
legislatures — which  then  might  declare  their  laws 
proper,  against  whatever  outcry — but  by  a  non-law- 
making  arm  of  the  government,  the  Courts.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  the  action  of  State  legislatures  has  thus 
been  declared  unconstitutional  some  hundreds  of 
times;  and  more  than  a  score  of  times  the  Supreme 
Court  has  annulled  a  law  passed  by  Congress. 

To  many  Americans,  and  perhaps  to  most  foreign- 
ers, this  power  of  our  courts  seems  too  great.  M. 
Rodrigues,  a  French  admirer  of  our  people,  calls  it 
"a  dreadful  obligation,  an  exorbitant  power,  if  ever 
there  was  one.  The  judge  is  the  judge  not  only  of 
cases,  but  of  laws ;  he  is  the  judge  not  only  of  parties 
but  of  legislators!"  Mr.  Walter  Weyl,  in  The  New 
Democracy,  likewise  declares  that  "this  right  of  the 
Supreme  Court  finally  and  unreviewably  to  declare  a 
law  void,  in  opposition  to  the  opinion  of  a  majority, 
constitutes,  in  the  absence  of  ample  facilities  for  a 
popular  amendment  of  the  Constitution,  a  flat  and 
uncompromising  negation  of  democracy." 

This  situation  deserves  careful  attention.  Here 
is  an  institution  conceived  by  our  fathers  for  the 
purpose  of  checking  legislation  oppressive  of  the  fun- 
damental rights  of  any  class  or  individual,  now  re- 


30  LIBERTY 

garded  by  many  acute  observers  as  a  grievous  clog 
upon  needed  social  reforms. 

The  problem  is,  first,  as  to  the  facts,  and  then  as  to 
the  proper  policy. 

John  Marshall,  the  first  Chief  Justice  of  the  Federal 
Supreme  Court,  maintained  the  view  that  the  Consti- 
tution is  to  be  interpreted  in  such  wise  as  to  make 
for  the  truest  welfare  of  the  people,  rather  than  in  a 
spirit  of  technicality  and  literalism.  Many  of  his 
successors  were  animated  by  this  same  liberal  spirit, 
which  may  fairly  be  called  the  historic  American  tra- 
dition in  the  matter.  It  was  expressed  by  Eoosevelt 
in  1912,  when  he  wrote,  "My  plea  is  that  the  courts 
act  with  ordinary  statesmanship,  ordinary  regard  for 
the  Constitution  as  a  living  aid  to  growth,  not  as  a 
strait-jacket." 

It  must  be  admitted,  however,  that  on  many  occa- 
sions during  the  past  century  the  exercise  of  this  con- 
stitutional veto  by  the  courts  has  actually  blocked 
needed  legislation  and  been  a  bulwark  of  special 
privilege.  To  cite  a  few  out  of  many  cases:  The 
Federal  Supreme  Court  declared  unconstitutional  a 
New  York  State  law  limiting  the  hours  of  work  in 
bake-shops,  on  the  ground  that  it  deprived  the  em- 
ployees of  their  personal  liberty  to  work  as  long  as 
they  chose.  This  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  a  large 
proportion  of  the  bake-shops  were  underground,  and 
unhygienic,  that  the  health  of  many  employees  had 
been  ruined  by  the  long  hours  of  work  required  of 
them  in  such  surroundings,  and  that  the  law  which 
had  been  passed  was  their  only  prospect  of  prompt 
relief  from  the  intolerable  conditions.  What  the  em- 
ployees wanted  was  to  be  able  to  work  a  reasonable 
number  of  hours  and  still  retain  their  positions.  That 
would  have  been  for  them  a  real  increase  in  liberty. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  GUARANTIES  31 

Yet  the  right  of  the  legislature  to  procure  for  them 
that  liberty  was  denied  by  the  courts  on  the  ground  of 
a  purely  theoretical  liberty  which  no  one,  or  almost 
no  one,  wanted  to  exercise;  a  liberty  which  simply 
gave  the  owners  of  the  bake-shops  the  right  to  make 
big  profits  through  the  overwork  of  their  employees. 

Similarly,  the  New  York  State  Court  of  Appeals 
declared  unconstitutional  a  State  law  prohibiting  the 
making  of  cigars  in  tenements,  on  the  ground  that 
this  law  interfered  with  personal  liberty  and  private 
property;  it  forced  the  worker  "from  his  home  and 
its  hallowed  associations  and  beneficent  influences!''" 
The  situation  was  that  the  employers  were  saving 
money  through  being  able  to  go  without  a  factory, 
while  the  workers  were  injuring  their  health  through 
overlong  hours  of  working — made  necessary  by  the 
unregulated  competition  and  very  low  pay  per  hour; 
little  children,  aged  and  sick  people  were  kept  at  work, 
to  add  to  the  family  income,  and  the  health  of  both 
workers  and  the  consumers  was  seriously  endangered. 
It  is  universally  admitted  by  students  of  social  condi- 
tions that  tenement-industries  are  a  menace  to  the 
community.  And  these  industries  received  a  new  lease 
of  life  by  this  widely  advertised  decision  of  the  Court. 
Mrs.  Florence  Kelley,  one  of  the  ablest  of  our  social 
workers,  wrote  in  1905,  that  if  the  new  State  law  had 
been  upheld  instead  of  being  annulled,  "it  is  safe  to  as- 
sert that  the  odious  system  of  tenement  manufacture 
would  long  ago  have  perished  in  every  trade  in  every 
city  in  the  Republic." 

The  Illinois  Supreme  Court,  in  1886  and  subsequent 
years,  annulled  acts  of  the  State  legislature  requiring 
mine-owners  to  weigh  the  coal  mined  and  pay  the 
miners  on  the  basis  of  such  weight.  In  1892  and  1904, 
it  held  as  void  legislative  acts  regulating  the  keeping 


32  LIBERTY 

of  truck  stores  by  the  owners  of  coal  mines  and  fac- 
tories. In  1900,  it  anulled  a  law  prohibiting  the  use 
of  the  American  flag  for  advertising  purposes;  in  1901, 
an  act  prohibiting  more  than  six  persons  from  sleeping 
in  one  room  in  a  lodging-house;  in  1906,  an  act  re- 
quiring owners  of  mines  to  provide  a  washroom  at  the 
top  of  the  mine  for  the  use  of  the  miners ;  in  1909,  an 
act  regulating  the  practice  of  assigning  future  wages 
as  security  for  borrowed  money  by  requiring  the 
assignment  to  be  signed  by  the  wife  of  a  married  man 
and  recorded. 

These  cases,  cited  out  of  a  great  number,  make  it 
clear  that  the  passing  of  desirable  reform  measures 
has  often  been  blocked  by  the  Courts.  And  a  very 
great  number  of  other  reforms  have  been  postponed, 
or  are  still  impossible  of  achievement,  because  it  is 
recognized  that  the  courts  would  annul  them.  Our 
constitutions  are  so  difficult  of  amendment  that  this 
veto  power  of  the  courts  is  usually  decisive.  We  are 
the  only  great  nation  that  handicaps  progressive  legis- 
lation in  this  way.  And  it  is  generally  conceded  that 
we  are  behind  most  of  the  more  civilized  nations  in 
our  social-welfare  legislation. 

In  particular,  the  cause  of  labor  has  often  suffered 
from  the  exercise  of  judicial  interpretation.  It  is 
scarcely  to  be  wondered  at  that  delegates  of  labor  con- 
ventions often  declare  that  they  have  lost  all  hope  in 
legal  procedure  and  want  to  try  lawless  methods  for 
ameliorating  the  lot  of  the  laboring  classes.  The 
Fourteenth  Amendment  to  the  Federal  Constitution, 
which  declares  that  property  must  not  be  taken  with- 
out due  process  of  law,  has  been  used  over  and  over 
again  by  judges  to  justify  the  annulment  of  laws 
passed  by  legislatures  and  desired  by  the  people.  The 
result  is  that  property  rights  have  been  given  in  this 


CONSTITUTIONAL  GUAEANTIES  33 

country  a  more  protected  status  than  anywhere  else 
in  the  world,  and  often  ranked  above  what  we  call 
human  rights.  So  much  use  has  been  made  of  that 
Fourteenth  Amendment  that  it  has  been  specifically 
proposed  that  whenever  an  act  is  passed  by  two  differ- 
ent sessions  of  a  legislature,  and  approved  by  the 
electorate  upon  a  referendum,  it  shall  be  held  not  to 
infringe  the  "life,  liberty,  and  property"  clause  in 
that  amendment. 

The  reasons  for  this  obstructionist  attitude  of  some 
of  our  courts  must  be  sought  in  the  training  that 
judges  receive.  The  law  schools  have  trained  their 
students  rather  in  a  legalist,  backward-looking  tem- 
per, than  in  a  constructive,  forward-looking  spirit. 
One  of  the  judges  of  the  Federal  Supreme  Court  has 
written,  "The  training  of  lawyers  is  a  training  in 
logic  .  .  .  The  logical  method  and  form  flatter  that 
longing  for  certainty  and  for  repose  which  is  in  every 
human  mind.  But  certainty  generally  is  illusion, 
and  repose  is  not  the  destiny  of  man.  Behind  the  log- 
ical form  lies  a  judgment  as  to  the  relative  worth  and 
importance  of  competing  legislative  grounds,  often 
an  inarticulate  and  unconscious  judgment,  it  is  true, 
and  yet  the  very  root  and  nerve  of  the  whole  proceed- 
ing. ...  To  measure  them  justly  needs  not  only  the 
amplest  powers  of  a  judge  and  a  training  which  the 
practice  of  the  law  does  not  insure,  but  also  a  freedom 
from  prepossessions  which  is  very  hard  to  attain.  It 
seems  to  me  desirable  that  the  work  should  be  done 
with  express  recognition  of  its  nature." 

In  short,  the  courts  have  been  taking  upon  them- 
selves what  is  not  merely  an  interpretative  but  a 
political  function.  But  they  are  made  up  not  of  rep- 
resentatives of  all  classes,  but  solely  of  lawyers,  who 
almost  inevitably  come  to  have  the  property  point  of 


34  LIBEETY 

view.  Their  work  lies  largely  in  the  sphere  of  the  en- 
forcement of  property  interests.  They  do  not  con- 
sciously mean  to  be  servants  of  organized  property 
interests,  but  their  unconscious  prejudices  make  them 
often  its  ready  tools. 

To  realize  to  what  extent  the  supposedly  interpre- 
tative function  of  the  courts  is  actually  determinative, 
we  have  but  to  read  the  opinions  of  the  dissenting 
judges,  which  are  usually  the  most  drastic  criticisms 
of  the  majority  decisions,  and  show  how  far  the  social 
philosophy  of  the  judges  colors  their  arguments.  A 
legal  foundation  can  be  brought  up  for  almost  any 
decision,  through  the  selection  of  the  precedents  to  be 
followed.  A  student  of  the  law  has  recently  declared 
that  "there  are  so  many  principles  and  precedents  run- 
ning in  different  directions,  that  a  judge  can  generally 
find  some  principle,  precedent,  or  construction  to 
justify  in  legal  form  the  conclusion  he  has  arrived  at 
on  the  facts  .  .  .  With  the  courts  of  forty-six  States 
and  several  English-speaking  jurisdictions  handing 
down  decisions  at  the  rate  of  several  hundred  bulky 
volumes  every  year,  it  is  not  difficult  to  find  authority 
and  reason  for  almost  any  practicable  view ;  and  even 
when  certain  precedents  seem  to  stand  in  the  way  of 
the  judgment  the  court  would  like  to  render,  these 
can  often  be  distinguished  from  the  case  at  bar  by 
some  slight  difference,  or  perhaps  quite  marked  and 
vital  difference  in  the  facts  and  circumstances." 

For  example,  the  majority  of  the  Massachusetts  Su- 
preme Court  recently  stated  the  opinion  that  the 
legislature  could  not  legally  give  authority  to  the 
cities  of  the  State  to  establish  municipal  coal  and 
wood  yards,  for  the  purpose  of  providing  their  citizens 
with  fuel  at  a  reasonable  price.  The  ground  for  this 
decision  lay  in  the  fact  that  the  judges  thought  it 


CONSTITUTIONAL  GUAEANTIES  35 

would  be  an  unwise  thing  for  municipalities  to  go 
into  such  business  and  that  it  would  open  the  way 
for  further  "socialistic"  enterprises.  But  Mr.  Justice 
Holmes  (now  a  member  of  the  Federal  Supreme 
Court)  dissented  vigorously  from  this  view,  declaring 
that  "when  money  is  taken  to  enable  a  public  body  to 
offer  to  the  public  without  discrimination  an  article 
of  general  necessity,  the  purpose  is  not  less  public 
when  that  article  is  wood  or  coal  than  when  it  is 
water  or  gas  or  electricity  or  education,  to  say  nothing 
of  cases  like  the  support  of  paupers,  or  the  taking  of 
land  for  railroads  or  public  markets." 

In  this  case  the  fact  that  a  majority  of  the  judges 
were  unfavorably  disposed,  owing  to  their  social  class 
or  education  or  thought,  to  the  extension  of  munic- 
ipal activity,  led  them  to  block  legislation  which  a 
majority  of  Mr.  Holmes'  type  would  have  passed  as 
legitimate.  It  can  clearly  be  seen  that  the  political 
and  social  temper  of  our  judges  may  well  be  a  more 
serious  matter  than  that  of  our  legislators  and  execu- 
tives; and,  in  our  system,  the  judges  have  the  last 
word.  Even  though  there  be  a  large  popular  majority 
in  favor  of  a  law,  and  a  majority  in  the  Congress  or 
State  legislature,  and  even  though  the  welfare  of  the 
people,  as  well  as  their  will,  is  embodied  in  the  law, 
the  courts  can  keep  it  off  the  statute-books. 

Do  we  wish  to  allow  the  courts  this  right  to  obstruct 
the  will  of  the  people?  Certainly,  if  we  allow  them 
to  retain  it,  we  must  be  free  to  criticize  their  action 
when  we  disapprove  it.  Time  has  shown  that  not  a 
few  court  decisions  have  been  undesirable.  Our 
greatest  American,  Abraham  Lincoln,  felt  free  to 
condemn  the  action  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States.  Of  the  Dred  Scott  decision  he  said, 
"we  think  this  decision  erroneous.  We  know  that 


36  LIBERTY 

the  court  that  made  it  has  often  overruled  its  own 
decisions,  and  we  shall  do  what  we  can  to  have  it 
overrule  this  ...  I  do  not  resist  it  ...  We  abide 
by  the  decision,  but  we  will  try  to  reverse  that 
decision." 

Similarly,  Theodore  Koosevelt  criticized  the  New 
York  State  Bakeshop  decision,  above  described: 
"The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  possessed, 
and  unfortunately  exercised,  the  negative  power  of 
not  permitting  the  above  to  be  remedied.  By  a  five- 
to-four  vote  they  declared  the  action  of  the  State  of 
New  York  unconstitutional,  because,  forsooth,  men 
must  not  be  deprived  of  their  'liberty'  to  work  under 
unhealthy  conditions  .  .  .  The  Court  was,  of  course, 
absolutely  powerless  to  make  the  remotest  attempt 
to  provide  a  remedy  for  the  wrong  which  undoubt- 
edly existed,  and  its  refusal  to  permit  action  by  the 
State  did  not  confer  any  power  upon  the  nation  to 
act.  The  decision  was  nominally  against  states' 
rights,  but  really  against  popular  rights." 

Shall  we  go  further  than  to  bring  the  pressure  of 
public  opinion  to  bear  upon  the  judiciary?  Many 
publicists  have  advocated  the  "recall"  of  judges  whose 
interpretations  run  contrary  to  the  majority  will. 
Without  going  so  far  as  this,  we  might  propose,  as 
Roosevelt  did,  the  "recall  of  judicial  decisions,"  i.e., 
a  referendum  which  would  let  the  people  decide 
whether,  in  a  given  case,  they  wished  to  uphold  or  to 
annul  the  interpretation  of  the  court.  This  plan 
seems  preferable  to  the  recall  of  the  judge  himself, 
since  the  fear  of  losing  his  office  might  tend  to  make 
a  judge  too  sensitive  to  public  opinion.  The  inde- 
pendence of  the  judiciary  is  a  valuable  asset  in  a 
democracy.  Yet  where  the  recall  of  judges  has  been 
available  it  has  been  used  with  moderation  and  wis- 


CONSTITUTIONAL  GUARANTIES  37 

dom ;  and  it  is  not  to  be  forgotten  that  it  is  a  possible 
last  resort. 

Again,  it  would  be  possible  to  take  from  the 
judiciary  its  power  of  constitutional  veto  and  give 
the  Congress  and  State  legislatures  the  power  to 
determine  the  constitutionality  of  their  own  acts, 
with,  perhaps,  a  popular  referendum  when  desired 
by  a  sufficient  number  of  people.  This,  however, 
would  be  a  sharp  break  with  our  traditions.  And  it 
is  highly  questionable  whether  this  taking  off  the 
brakes  would  not  encourage  hasty  and  extremist 
legislation,  and  do  more  harm  than  good.  We  are  a 
conservative  nation,  and  will  not  lightly  abrogate, 
because  of  the  dangers  that  inhere  in  it,  a  policy  that 
has  appealed  to  most  Americans  as,  on  the  whole,  rea- 
sonable and  wise. 

Perhaps  the  best  solution,  on  the  whole,  will  be  to 
leave  the  Courts  their  power,  and  to  make  the  process 
of  amending  Constitutions  somewhat  easier.  Thomas 
Jefferson  wished  that  constitutions  might  be  deliber- 
ately revised  every  nineteen  years.  Attempts  are 
periodically  made  thoroughly  to  revise  antiquated 
State  constitutions;  but  because  of  the  clumsy  pro- 
cedure involved,  they  rarely  achieve  a  marked  success. 

However,  the  passing  of  the  eighteenth  and  nine- 
teenth Amendments  to  the  Federal  Constitution 
shows  that  instrument  to  be  still  plastic  to  the  popu- 
lar will.  And  incidental  changes  are  constantly 
being  made  in  State  constitutions.  When  a  court, 
through  its  interpretation  of  constitutional  provi- 
sions, blocks  a  generally  desired  law,  an  alteration 
in  the  Constitution  can  be  made,  if  enough  people 
want  it.  And  although  this  process  has  hitherto  been 
often  heartbreakingly  slow,  and  although  judges  are 
sometimes  sadly  lacking  in  social  vision  and  prone 


38  LIBERTY 

to  give  a  narrowly  legalistic  interpretation,  one  that 
concerns  itself  more  with  property  rights  than  with 
human  rights,  yet  the  idea  behind  this  Constitu- 
tional barrier  is  a  sound  one.  It  comes  down  to  a 
question  of  political  policy.  Do  we  need  checks  upon 
over-hasty  legislative  action?  Or  do  we  need  rather 
to  progress  more  freely  than  our  constitutional  bar- 
riers permit? 

The  ideal  is  undoubtedly  that  expressed  by  Dr. 
Lyman  Abbott:  "The  Constitution  is  not  like  the 
hoops  of  a  barrel  that  hold  the  staves  together  .  .  . 
It  is  like  the  bark  of  a  tree  that  grows  with  the  growth 
of  the  tree  and  expands  with  its  expansion."  If  we 
can  keep  our  Constitution  as  flexible  as  this  analogy 
suggests,  we  can,  if  we  choose,  repeal  or  amend 
clauses  in  it  that  come  to  be  interpreted  by  the 
Courts  in  a  manner  contrary  to  the  popular  will. 
New  laws  can  then  be  passed  that  will  not  be  subject 
to  annulment,  at  least  on  the  old  grounds.  In  this 
manner  we  may  unite  caution  with  experimentation, 
a  wise  conservatism  with  a  progressive  regard  for 
human  needs  and  interests. 

SUGGESTED  READINGS 

F.  J.  Goodnow,  Social  Reform  and  the  Constitution. 

Frank  Parsons,  Legal  Doctrine  and  Social  Progress,  Chap.  IV. 
H.   M.   Kales,   Unpopular   Government  in  the   United  States, 
Chapters  XVI,  XVII. 

G.  G.  Groat,  The  Attitude  of  American  Courts  in  Labor  Cases. 
L.  P.  Edie,  Current  Social  and  Industrial  Forces,  pp.  223-229. 
T.  M.  Cooley,  Constitutional  Limitations,  seventh  ed. 
Theodore  Roosevelt,  The  New  Nationalism:  Criticism  of  the 

Courts. 

J.  H.  Tufts,  Our  Democracy,  Chapter  XXVI. 
Brooks  Adams,  The  Theory  of  Social  Revolutions. 
J.  A.  Smith,  The  Spirit  of  American  Government,  Chapters 

V,  XI. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  GUARANTIES  39 

C.  G.  Haines,  The  American  Doctrine  of  Judicial  Supremacy. 
A.  L.  Hudson,  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  112,  p.  679. 
G.  W.  Alger,  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  Ill,  p.  345. 
K.  T.  Frederick,  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  110,  p.  46. 
Louis  Bartlett,  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  126,  p.  289. 


CHAPTER  V 

INDIVIDUALISM 

WE  have  been  discussing  certain  restrictions  upon 
liberty  that  are  necessary  for  liberty's  sake.  It  is 
by  no  means  true,  however,  that  our  only  danger  lies 
in  an  unrestricted  and  heedless  individualism.  On 
the  contrary,  there  are  ways  in  which  we  need  more 
rather  than  less  individual  liberty. 

Much  that  is  best  in  our  national  life  has  come  from 
the  self-reliance  bred  by  pioneer  conditions,  the  love 
of  overcoming  obstacles,  the  zest  in  what  Roosevelt 
named  the  Strenuous  Life.  In  general,  the  people 
who  left  their  home-lands  and  dared  the  dangers  of 
the  ocean  and  of  a  new  country  were  the  bolder, 
hardier  folk.  They  found  here  abundant  opportuni- 
ties for  personal  initiative.  Owing  to  their  diversity 
of  race  and  traditions  they  were  slow  in  developing  a 
"consciousness  of  kind."  They  wrote  their  individu- 
alistic creed  into  their  laws  and  constitutions;  their 
writers  and  poets  glorified  that  fearless  and  energetic 
individualism  and  crystallized  it  into  an  explicit  and 
avowed  ideal. 

All  this  is  to  the  good.  Our  aim  should  be,  not  to 
cramp,  but  so  far  as  possible  to  liberate,  these  indi- 
vidual energies.  It  is  with  us  an  established  right 
that  each  young  man  and  woman  shall  choose  his  or 
her  vocation,  friends,  religious  faith,  home;  shall 
carve  out  an  individual  life,  rather  than  be  sub- 
ject to  family  dictation  or  pressure,  as  is  so  often 

40 


INDIVIDUALISM  41 

the  case  in  Europe.  Hundreds  of  young  men  every 
year,  with  little  more  than  their  natural  talents  to 
help  them,  succeed  in  carving  out  a  career  for  them- 
selves and  lifting  themselves  to  positions  of  profit 
and  power.  And  in  increasing  numbers  the  young 
women  of  America  are  following  their  example  and 
becoming  independent  individuals,  able  to  support 
themselves  and  make  a  distinctive  personal  contribu- 
tion to  the  country's  life. 

But  this  individualistic  spirit  is  as  yet  only  par- 
tially developed.  In  some  matters  public  opinion 
still  presses  too  hard  upon  the  individual,  seeking  to 
make  him  conform  to  generally  accepted  standards 
of  manners  and  morals,  at  the  expense  of  the  com- 
plete development  of  his  personality.  This  is  partly 
the  result  of  our  Puritan  tradition,  which  allowed  no 
variation  from  a  supposedly  infallible  code,  and 
partly  the  instinctive  expression  of  a  very  widespread 
human  attitude,  the  dislike  of  conduct  that  varies 
from  our  own. 

More  serious  even  than  this  is  the  fact  that  there 
are  whole  classes  of  workers  who,  while  being  cogs 
in  a  great  industrial  or  commercial  machine,  have  no 
least  share  in  shaping  the  conditions  of  their  daily 
work  or  the  policies  of  the  industry  they  serve.  They 
are  simply  "hands,"  not  human  beings,  to  be  ordered 
about,  never  to  be  consulted  or  even  listened  to ;  they 
are  what  the  agitators  call  "wage-slaves."  This  state 
of  things  is  undesirable,  not  primarily  out  of  consid- 
eration for  abstract  justice,  but  because  this  stifling 
of  individuality  narrows  unnecessarily  the  lives  of  so 
many  people,  deprives  them  of  zest  in  their  work,  and 
deprives  the  industries  of  the  ideas  that  would  be 
evolved  from  their  participation  in  their  manage- 
ment. Emerson  boasted  of  our  people  that  we  are 


; 


42  LIBERTY 

"a  nation  of  individuals."  But  we  are  in  danger  of 
becoming,  if  we  have  not  already  become,  an  upper 
class  of  individuals  controlling  the  daily  life  of  a 
great  mass  of  laborers  who  have  little  opportunity 
to  develop  their  individuality  or  to  express  it  if  it 
were  developed. 

The  fact  seems  to  be  that  most  of  the  present 
managers  of  industry  are  so  confident  in  their  own 
judgment,  so  afraid  of  the  ignorance  or  shortsighted- 
ness of  the  workers  whose  help  they  use  in  carrying 
on  the  business — in  short,  so  undemocratic  in  their 
outlook — that  they  are  afraid  or  unwilling  to  share 
the  responsibility  of  decision,  except  perhaps  with 
their  technical  experts  or  heads  of  departments.  Yet 
where  some  measure  of  industrial  democracy  has  been 
tried,  the  results  have  usually  been  salutary,  not  only 
upon  the  workers  admitted  to  participation  in  con- 
trol, in  developing  their  individuality  and  giving 
them  a  new  interest  in  life,  but  in  contributing  ideas 
of  value  to  the  business.  As  Professor  Mecklin  says, 
"among  the  thousands  of  human  beings  working  like 
bees  in  a  vast  plant  there  are  countless  precious 
human  capacities  that  lie  dormant  or  are  absolutely 
ignored.  'Mute  inglorious  Miltons,'  men  with  scien- 
tific, artistic,  or  moral  gifts,  are  forced  to  fit  their 
varied  geniuses  into  one  colossal  mechanistic  scheme 
that  knows  but  one  measure  of  value — earning 
capacity."  Some  way  to  develop  and  utilize  these 
latent  energies  and  talents  must  be  devised. 

Curiously  enough,  in  American  politics  the  opposite 
practice  rules.  Our  idea  here  is  that  almost  anybody 
can  fill  any  position ;  we  do  not  demand  professional 
training  for  high  political  office.  As  an  acute  foreign 
observer  wrote,  some  years  before  the  war,  "The  need 
of  specialized  experts  is  not  felt ;  and  the  result  is  an 


INDIVIDUALISM  43 

ineffective  triviality  which  repels  the  best  men  and 
opens  wide  the  door  for  dishonesty."  When  Mr. 
Bryan  was  arguing  for  free  silver  he  was  reported  to 
have  said  that  the  opinion  of  all  the  professors  of  the 
United  States  would  not  affect  his  opinion  in  the 
least.  And  this  same  distrust  of  the  trained  student 
permeates  our  government.  Mayors  are  elected  in 
our  great  cities  who  have  had  no  experience  in 
managing  municipal  affairs.  Senators  are  appointed 
to  committees  with  no  thought  as  to  their  previous 
training  in  the  fields  in  which  those  committees  must 
prepare  legislation.  Debates  take  place  continually 
upon  the  floor  of  Congress  which  are  ridiculous  to 
any  one  who  is  a  competent  student  of  the  matters 
discussed. 

Plainly  the  ideal,  both  for  politics  and  for  industry, 
is  to  combine  the  fullest  self-expression  for  all  with 
the  utilization  of  the  greatest  natural  talent  that  can 
be  discovered  and  the  most  thorough  training  that 
can  be  devised.  Every  one  of  age  should  participate 
in  the  choice  of  those  who  are  to  govern ;  but  the  peo- 
ple must  be  educated  to  realize  the  value  of  talent  and 
training,  so  that  they  will  try  to  choose  those  who 
will  be  most  competent  for  the  work  in  hand.  Such 
a  democracy,  encouraging  individuality  everywhere, 
and  bringing  the  individuals  of  greatest  worth  to  the 
top,  would  be  infinitely  superior  both  to  the  easy- 
going "he's-a-good-fellow"  of  contemporary  politics 
and  the  autocratic  control  of  contemporary  industry. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  two  realms  are  not  so  unlike 
as  would  appear.  Political  officials  are  actually 
chosen  for  the  most  part  by  small  groups  of  poli- 
ticians rather  than  by  any  real  popular  decision; 
the  voter  is  consulted  not  as  to  whom  he  wishes  but 
only  as  to  which  of  two  or  three  he  wishes.  What  we 


44  LIBERTY 

need  is  a  means  by  which  a  really  popular  will  can 
be  created  and  expressed,  as  well  in  politics  as  in 
industry.  In  the  early  days  of  the  Republic,  when 
both  politics  and  industry  were  on  a  small  scale, 
there  was  ample  scope  for  the  individuality  of  any 
one  who  had  ideas  to  contribute.  But  the  develop- 
ment of  our  highly  complex  political  and  industrial 
machines  has  throttled  the  individuality  of  all  but 
the  fortunate  or  clever  few  who  can  push  their  way 
into  the  inner  councils.  Many  proposals  will  be  dis- 
cussed and  tried  out  before  we  agree  upon  the  best 
way  to  restore  something  like  the  splendidly  demo- 
cratic individualism  of  the  old  days.  But  a  clear 
recognition  of  the  partial  eclipse  of  this  ideal  is  half 
the  battle  for  its  regaining. 

There  is  another  way  in  which  the  free  individual- 
ism of  our  American  tradition  is  in  danger  of  being 
lost.  That  tradition  was  voiced  by  Emerson  when 
he  wrote,  "Why  was  man  born,  if  not  to  be  a  re- 
former, a  re-maker  of  what  man  has  done?"  It  has 
recently  been  expressed  by  a  French  critic,  M. 
Rodrigues,  who  writes,  "The  mission  of  the  American 
people  is  a  mission  of  renascence  and  renovation." 
The  spirit  behind  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
was  the  impulse  toward  free  experimentation,  toward 
detachment  from  the  past,  toward  giving  free  play  to 
imagination  and  thought.  The  Founders  were  radi- 
cals, not  afraid  to  voice  their  radicalism.  They  wel- 
comed to  these  shores  men  of  radical  opinions,  and 
make  of  our  country  the  great  political  asylum.  They 
were  not  afraid  of  trying  out  a  new  plan  of  govern- 
ment. The  several  States  became  so  many  experi- 
ment stations  in  democracy.  Change,  growth,  free 
criticism,  progress,  were  in  the  air. 

But  in  these  latter  years  a  new  timorousness  has 


INDIVIDTJALISM  45 

appeared  in  American  life.  Prosperity  has  begotten 
contentment,  conservatism,  the  let-well-enough-alone 
attitude.  What  was  radical  in  the  days  of  the 
Founders  is  now  accepted  as  a  matter  of  course ;  but 
the  radical  thought  of  today  is  branded  in  some 
quarters  as  dangerous  and  deserving  of  ruthless  sup- 
pression. The  result  is  that  we  are  in  danger  of 
becoming  actually  the  most  convention-ridden  and 
unprogressive  of  the  great  nations.  Many  modern 
observers  have,  in  fact,  given  that  as  their  mature 
opinion  of  American  life.  Even  de  Toqueville  found 
this  tendency  to  the  crystallization  of  a  new  conven- 
tionalism; "one  would  say,"  he  wrote,  "that  minds 
have  all  been  formed  upon  the  same  model  in 
America,  so  exactly  do  they  follow  the  same  routes." 
Matthew  Arnold  was  impressed  by  the  drab  uni- 
formity of  our  civilization  and  the  absence  of  fresh 
currents  of  ideas.  Lord  Bryce,  America's  most 
sympathetic  critic,  has  written  of  our  cities  that 
"their  monotony  haunts  one  like  a  nightmare" ;  and, 
again,  has  pointed  out  that  we  have  "so  few  indepen- 
dent schools  of  opinion."  Very  recently  an  acute 
English  critic,  Mr.  Graham  Wallas,  writing  in  the 
Atlantic  Monthly,  declared  that  American  thought 
on  social  and  political  matters  is  "timid  and  con- 
ventional." 

The  fact  seems  to  be  that  too  many  of  us  have  come 
to  tolerate  the  wrong  kind  of  individualism  and  to 
frown  upon  the  right  kind.  Individualistic  activities 
— activities  which  further  private  fortunes,  at  no 
matter  whose  expense — are  acquiesced  in,  out  of  a 
sincere  belief  in  the  wisdom  of  leaving  the  individual 
unhampered  no  matter  how  the  public  is  plundered, 
or  out  of  a  more  or  less  conscious  realization  that  we 
should  like  to  feather  our  own  nests  in  the  same  way 


46  LIBEETY 

if  we  had  the  opportunity.  But  individualistic 
ideals,  ideas  at  variance  with  the  accepted  point  of 
view,  are  increasingly  the  cause  of  social  obloquy  and 
persecution. 

It  is  a  serious  question  whether  the  tyranny  of  the 
majority  opinion  in  a  democracy  may  not  be  as  bane- 
ful as  the  tyranny  of  an  oligarchy.  If  a  reformer  to- 
day, a  man  who  is  earnestly  seeking  a  juster  and  hu- 
maner  order,  ventures  to  label  his  vision  "socialism" 
or  "communism/'  he  is  in  danger  of  jail ;  or — if  he  is 
an  alien — of  deportation.  Even  if  he  does  not  so  label 
it,  and  if  in  fact  he  differs  essentially  from  these  ostra- 
cized views,  he  may  none  the  less  have  these  labels 
bestowed  upon  him  by  undiscriminating  authorities 
and  be  equally  in  danger.  It  has  been  said  that  at 
the  conclusion  of  a  war  the  victor  and  vanquished 
exchange  characteristics.  It  would  actually  seem  as 
if  a  breath  of  Prussianism  had  been  wafted  to  this 
land  that  once  boasted  of  its  individual  liberty. 
Instead  of  seeking  the  liberation  of  new  ideas,  the 
free  development  of  new  ideals,  there  are  many 
Americans  today  who  are  deliberately  trying  to  stamp 
out  ideas  which  they  consider  heterodox  or  radical, 
and,  paradoxically  enough,  calling  themselves  in  the 
doing  it  "One  hundred  per  cent  Americans!" 

The  psychologist  can  readily  understand  this  reac- 
tionary attitude.  "The  average  brain  is  naturally 
lazy  and  tends  to  take  the  line  of  least  resistance. 
The  mental  world  of  the  ordinary  man  consists  of 
beliefs  which  he  has  accepted  without  questioning 
and  to  which  he  is  firmly  attached ;  he  is  instinctively 
hostile  to  anything  which  would  upset  the  established 
order  of  his  familiar  world.  A  new  idea,  inconsistent 
with  some  of  the  beliefs  which  he  holds,  means  the 
necessity  of  rearranging  his  mind;  and  this  process 


INDIVIDUALISM  4Y 

is  laborious,  requiring  a  painful  expenditure  of  brain- 
energy.  To  him  and  his  fellows,  who  form  the  vast 
majority,  new  ideas,  and  opinions  which  cast  doubt 
on  established  beliefs  and  institutions,  seem  evil 
because  they  are  disagreeable. 

"The  repugnance  due  to  the  mental  laziness  is  in- 
creased by  a  positive  feeling  of  fear.  The  conserva- 
tive instinct  hardens  into  the  conservative  doctrine 
that  the  foundations  of  society  are  endangered  by 
any  alterations  in  the  structure.  It  is  only  recently 
that  men  have  been  abandoning  the  belief  that  the 
welfare  of  a  state  depends  on  rigid  stability  and  on 
the  preservation  of  its  traditions  and  institutions 
unchanged.  Wherever  that  belief  prevails,  novel 
opinions  are  felt  to  be  dangerous  as  well  as  annoying, 
and  anyone  who  asks  inconvenient  questions  about 
the  why  and  the  wherefore  of  accepted  principles  is 
considered  a  pestilent  person." 

The  attitude  is  intelligible,  but  it  is  not  one  hun- 
dred per  cent  American;  it  is  not  one  per  cent 
American.  It  is  the  continual  application  of  new 
ideas  that  has  made  possible  the  great  development 
of  American  business,  the  great  strides  of  American 
mechanical  invention.  We  need  that  same  current 
of  fresh  ideas  turned  upon  our  political  and  social 
mechanisms.  No  doubt  there  is,  and  always  will  be, 
much  individual  thinking  upon  public  affairs  that  is 
silly,  one-sided,  or  Utopian,  inspired  by  resentments, 
unfruitful.  But  even  so,  it  pays  to  cultivate  indi- 
viduality. In  the  realm  of  mechanics  a  hundred 
suggestions  are  made  for  one  that  proves  useful. 
Many  years  of  experimenting,  and  many  costly  fail- 
ures, preceded  the  building  of  the  airplane  that  could 
really  fly.  So  in  political  matters,  it  is  easy  to  criti- 
cize and  to  propose,  and  it  will  be  a  long  process  to 


48  LIBERTY 

disentangle  what  is  good  in  the  babel  of  voices  from 
what  is  of  no  constructive  value.  But  it  is  only  by 
the  utmost  encouragement  of  criticism  and  the  wel- 
coming of  variant  ideas  that  we  can  hope  to  move 
on  at  all. 

The  true  American,  then,  will  not  attempt  to  stifle 
discussion  by  calling  it  "agitation,"  he  will  not  label 
ideas  with  which  he  disagrees,  however  vigorously,  as 
"dangerous";  instead  of  focusing  his  attention  upon 
the  apparent  folly  of  Utopian  schemes  he  will  seek 
to  understand  the  motives  that  lie  behind  their  con- 
struction and  the  evils  that  they  are  meant  to  remedy. 
He  will  realize  that  from  even  the  wildest  radical 
there  may  be  something  to  learn;  he  will,  therefore, 
look  for  something  suggestive  in  every  man's  opinions, 
and  glory  in  that  absence  of  servility  to  tradition, 
that  prevalence  of  a  critical  spirit  toward  our  insti- 
tutions, and  that  fertility  of  inventive  thought,  which 
are  the  best  fruits  of  American  individualism. 

SUGGESTED   READINGS 

Sinclair  Kennedy,  The  Pan-Angles,  Chap.  III. 
R.  W.  Emerson,  Self -Reliance  (in  Essays,  vol.  I). 
Warner  Fite,  Individualism. 

J.  M.  Mecklin,  Introduction  to  Social  Ethics,  Chap.  III. 
Woodrow  Wilson,  The  New  Freedom. 

C.  W.  Eliot,  The  Conflict  between  Individualism  and  Collec- 
tivism in  a  Democracy. 

Josiah  Royce,  The  Philosophy  of  Loyalty,  Chap.  II. 
Durant  Drake,  Problems  of  Conduct,  pp.  403-408. 
W.  E.  Weyl,  The  New  Democracy,  Chap.  IV. 
J.  A.  Smith,  The  Spirit  of  American  Government,  Chap.  XII. 
J.  W.  Burgess,  The  Reconciliation  of  Government  with  Liberty. 
C.  E.  Merriam,  American  Political  Ideas,  Chapters  XI,  XII. 
Fabian  Franklin,  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  120,  p.  270. 
H.  C.  Brown,  in  International  Journal  of  Ethics,  vol.  26,  p.  177. 
A.  K.  Rogers,  in  International  Journal  of  Ethics,  vol.  26,  p.  323. 
V.  S.  Yarros,  in  International  Journal  of  Ethics,  vol.  29,  p.  405. 
E.  A.  Ross,  in  International  Journal  of  Ethics,  vol.  30,  p.  58. 


CHAPTER  VI 

FREE   SPEECH 

MOST  precious,  perhaps,  of  the  forms  of  freedom  on 
these  shores  has  been  the  freedom  of  belief  and  of 
public  utterance.  This  has  been  conspicuously  true 
in  the  field  of  religion.  We  know  that  the  Pilgrims 
came  hither  for  "freedom  to  worship  God."  So  it 
was  with  the  Puritans  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  the 
Huguenots,  the  Quakers,  and  many  others. 

True,  religious  freedom  for  these  early  immigrants 
meant  merely  the  right  to  hold  their  views,  not  the 
right  to  hold  any  views.  Roger  Williams,  a  heretic 
among  these  heretics,  was  persecuted  almost  as 
fiercely  as  he  would  have  been  in  the  Old  World. 
Through  his  efforts,  however,  together  with  the  gen- 
erous spirit  of  Lord  Baltimore  and  William  Penn 
and  their  followers,  farther  south,  the  principle  was 
gradually  accepted  that  the  Government  should  not 
meddle  with  religion  at  all,  and  that  every  one  should 
be  free  to  live  by  the  dictates  of  his  own  conscience. 

This  ideal  of  liberty  of  conscience,  so  early  devel- 
oped in  America,  is  one  of  our  most  distinctive  con- 
tributions to  civilization.  Nathaniel  Shaler  once 
declared  it  "the  most  unique  accomplishment  of  our 
people."  In  its  application  to  religion  it  was  em- 
bodied in  the  Virginia  Declaration  of  Rights,  June  2, 
1776:  "All  men  are  equally  entitled  to  the  free 
exercise  of  religion,  according  to  the  dictates  of 
conscience."  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
.  40  • 


50  LIBERTY 

forbade  the  use  of  any  religious  test  as  a  qualification 
for  office,  and  the  First  Amendment  declared  that 
"Congress  shall  make  no  law  respecting  an  establish- 
ment of  religion,  or  prohibiting  the  free  exercise 
thereof." 

This  tolerant  attitude  has  been  universally  ac- 
cepted in  America.  All  churches  are  protected,  none 
is  to  have  political  control.  No  sectarian  teaching  is 
to  be  allowed  in  the  public  schools.  No  individual  is 
to  suffer  disabilities  of  any  sort  because  of  his  reli- 
gious beliefs  or  disbeliefs.  As  Koosevelt  wrote,  in  his 
American  Ideals,  "We  maintain  that  it  is  an  outrage, 
in  voting  for  a  man  for  any  position,  whether  state 
or  national,  to  take  into  account  his  religious  faith, 
provided  only  he  is  a  good  American." 

This  does  not  mean  that  we  are  an  irreligious  peo- 
ple. On  the  contrary,  religion  flourishes  most  vigor- 
ously where  it  is  free.  Political  control  is  never  in 
this  country  to  be  used  to  push  any  one  Church ;  and 
conversely,  the  power  of  the  Church  is  never  to  be 
used  to  sustain  a  particular  political  regime  or  a 
privileged  social  class.  But  this  very  divorce  of  reli- 
gion from  politics  means  a  relaxation  of  sectarian 
animosities,  an  emphasis  upon  what  the  religious 
movements  have  in  common,  a  growth  in  mutual  re- 
spect, which  may  eventuate  in  the  union  of  all  men  of 
good  will  in  the  common,  unending  war  against  evil. 

The  ideal  of  individual  liberty  is  still  incompletely 
realized  while  the  thought  of  the  various  churches  is 
pocketed,  each  group  reading  its  own  denominational 
literature  and  living  an  intellectual  and  spiritual  life 
of  its  own.  What  we  need,  for  the  fulfilment  of  our 
ideal,  is  the  interflowing  of  these  varied  currents  of 
thought,  the  growth  out  of  them  of  something  larger 
and  more  inclusive.  We  must  work  to  the  end 


FREE  SPEECH  51 

that,  as  Dr.  Stanton  Coit  puts  it,  "the  thoughts  and 
feelings  on  religious  subjects  of  all  individuals  in  a 
nation  shall,  like  the  thoughts  and  feelings  in  one 
single  brain,  be  allowed  unimpeded  interaction  and 
shall  constitute  one  unified  and  common  fund  to 
which  each  person  shall  have  access." 

However  far  we  may  be  as  yet  from  this  ideal,  the 
fight  for  perfect  freedom  of  belief  and  utterance  in 
the  religious  sphere  has  been  definitely  won.  In  the 
political  and  economic  sphere,  on  the  contrary,  there 
has  been  recently  a  reactionary  movement,  engen- 
dered by  war-psychology  and  by  the  sight  of  revolu- 
tionary chaos  abroad,  toward  the  restriction  of  these 
elemental  rights.  Perhaps  we  may  say  that  freedom 
of  speech  in  religious  matters  is  unquestioned  today 
largely  because  people  do  not  take  religious  differ- 
ences so  seriously  as  they  did;  they  no  longer  think 
that  a  person  will  be  damned  if  he  has  heretical  ideas. 
But  they  do  take  differences  of  economic  doctrine 
seriously;  they  fear  the  destruction  of  society  if  any 
radical  reorganization  of  the  industrial  structure  is 
openly  advocated.  Or  perhaps  they  fear  mainly  the 
restriction  of  their  own  privileges  and  the  limitation 
of  their  own  income.  In  any  case,  their  dread  of  eco- 
nomic innovation  is  so  great  that  it  seems  to  them 
necessary  to  curb  the  time-honored  freedom  of  belief 
and  speech  of  which  America  has  always  been  so 
proud. 

Consider,  for  example,  the  following  facts.  During 
the  past  few  years  permits  for  speeches  in  halls  and 
out-of-doors  have  been  repeatedly  refused  to  people 
suspected  of  radical  ideas— including  Christian  min- 
isters of  high  reputation,  professors  in  theological 
schools,  editors  of  reputable  journals,  and  labor  lead- 
ers of  unquestioned  personal  character.  Meetings 


52  LIBERTY 

gathered  to  listen  to  speakers  obnoxious  to  the 
authorities  have  been  roughly  broken  up  and  the 
speakers  forcibly  ejected.  Not  only  have  the  mails 
been  closed  to  specific  issues  of  various  newspapers 
and  journals,  but  the  second-class  mailing  privilege 
has  been  refused  altogether  to  certain  periodicals — 
the  result  being,  in  some  cases,  to  put  an  end  to  their 
publication.  Books  and  pamphlets  containing  pass- 
ages disapproved  by  the  authorities  have  likewise 
been  declared  unmailable. 

Further,  raids  have  been  conducted  by  the  Govern- 
ment against  schools,  clubs,  workingmen's  associa- 
tions, political  party  headquarters ;  all  persons  on  the 
premises  have  been  indiscriminately  arrested,  regard- 
less of  the  absence  of  specific  evidence  as  to  their 
beliefs  or  utterances.  Property  has  been  seized  and 
held  without  warrant.  Great  numbers  of  people  have 
been  arrested  and  sent  to  jail  without  warrant.  Spies 
and  underground  agents  have  been  used  by  the  whole- 
sale to  disclose  to  the  Government  the  names  of  per- 
sons and  organizations  professing  radical  ideas.  In 
many  cases,  the  "radical"  ideas  for  which  men  have 
been  jailed  have  been  in  reality  no  more  radical  than 
the  ideas  of  the  founders  of  our  nation — as,  for 
example,  protests  against  the  infringement  of  the 
right  of  free  speech  or  against  the  continued  impris- 
onment of  political  prisoners  beyond  the  immediate 
emergency,  the  pointing  out  of  obvious  evils  in  the 
present  industrial  or  social  order,  the  calm  discussion 
of  possible  improvements  upon  or  alternatives  to 
contemporary  institutions. 

In  the  case  of  aliens  in  this  country  suspected  of 
radical  sympathies  the  procedure  has  been  even  more 
violent.  Thousands  of  unoffending  working-men 
have  been  suddenly  summoned  before  an  inspector  of 


FREE  SPEECH  53 

the  Bureau  of  Immigration  and  subjected  to  a  search- 
ing inquisition  into  their  beliefs.  Whether  or  not  they 
have  ever  joined  any  radical  party  or  publicly  uttered 
any  radical  opinions,  if  their  private  beliefs,  as 
extracted  by  this  inquisition,  are  unsatisfactory  to 
the  inspector,  they  can  be  summarily  banished  from 
the  United  States;  and  many  hard-working  men, 
innocent  of  all  offence  save  that  of  holding  a  minor- 
ity opinion  in  the  sacred  sphere  of  property  or  indus- 
trial organization,  have  been  arrested,  handcuffed, 
and  dragged  through  the  streets  like  common  crimi- 
nals, sent  to  jail,  without  a  jury  trial,  and  presently 
banished  from  the  country. 

The  various  socialist  and  communist  parties,  such 
as  exist  unmolested  in  all  countries  of  Europe — 
flourishing  openly  even  under  the  Hohenzollerns  and 
Hapsburgs — have  lately  been  treated  in  this  country 
by  the  majority  in  power  as  criminal  organizations. 
Membership  in  some  of  them  has  been  held  by  the 
Department  of  Justice  as  sufficient  ground  in  itself 
for  the  deportation  of  otherwise  unoffending  aliens 
who  may  have  established  a  home  in  this  country  and 
be  looking  forward  to  citizenship.  Socialist  repre- 
sentatives have  been  excluded  from  their  seats  in  our 
legislatures  because  of  the  party  to  which  they  be- 
longed; some  of  these,  when  re-elected,  have  again 
been  expelled. 

Worse  than  all  this,  bills  have  been  passed  by  State 
legislatures  that  lay  violent  hands  upon  freedom  of 
teaching.  According  to  these  bills  no  schools  are  to 
be  allowed  whose  teachings  are  not  approved  by  the 
State  authorities,  and  no  teachers  are  to  be  given 
teaching  certificates  who  do  not  promise  to  be  "loyal 
to  the  institutions  and  laws"  of  the  State — "disloy- 
alty" meaning  the  advocacy  of  any  important  change 


54  LIBERTY 

therein.  City  Boards  of  Education  have  passed  reso- 
lutions to  withhold  diplomas  from  all  public  school 
children  who  do  not  sign  a  pledge  that  they  will 
oppose  all  movements  "antagonistic  to  the  laws  of 
the  United  States  or  tending  to  subvert  the  Consti- 
tution,"— under  which  heads  any  fundamental  re- 
form can,  of  course,  be  classified.  Students  profess- 
ing socialistic  ideas  have  been  refused  diplomas  in 
law.  Many  public  school  teachers  have  been  dis- 
missed because  they  were  suspected  of  radical  lean- 
ings or  known  to  be  readers  of  radical  publications. 
Not  a  few  college  and  university  professors  have  lost 
their  positions  for  similar  reasons.  It  no  longer  is 
wise  for  a  teacher  in  many  of  our  educational  institu- 
tions to  profess  beliefs  unpopular  with  the  Powers 
that  Be. 

All  of  this  persecution  of  opinion,  which  would 
have  seemed  incredible  in  America  a  few  years  ago, 
is  the  outgrowth  of  the  War.  It  will,  no  doubt, 
gradually  die  out.  But  it  has  persisted,  with  little 
public  disapproval,  for  over  two  years,  at  date  of 
writing,  since  the  cessation  of  hostilities;  and  the 
extent  to  which  this  wave  of  intolerance  has  spread 
over  the  country  is  ominous.  It  shows  how  little  our 
people  have  been  trained  to  cherish  our  American 
heritage  of  liberty  of  opinion. 

Yet  there  is  no  ideal  deeper-rooted  in  our  history. 
Thomas  Jefferson  urged,  "If  there  be  any  among  us 
who  would  wish  to  dissolve  this  Union  or  to  change 
its  form,  let  them  stand  undisturbed.  Let  them  stand 
undisturbed  as  monuments  to  the  safety  with  which 
error  of  opinion  may  be  tolerated  when  reason  is  free 
to  combat  it."  Daniel  Webster  declared  that  what 
he  would  most  proudly  leave  to  posterity  was  his 
record  that  in  all  circumstances  he  had  favored  free- 


FREE  SPEECH  55 

dom  of  opinion,  especially  freedom  for  opinions  that 
were  in  bad  repute.  President  Wilson  summed  up 
our  national  ideal  in  these  words:  "If  there  is  one 
thing  we  love  more  than  another  in  the  United  States, 
it  is  that  every  man  should  have  the  privilege,  unmo- 
lested and  uncriticized,  to  utter  the  real  convictions 
of  his  mind." 

That  many  public-spirited  Americans  have  kept 
this  ideal  alive  in  their  hearts  during  the  wave  of 
repression  following  the  Great  War  may  be  witnessed 
by  the  protest  against  the  Government's  policy  signed 
by  twelve  of  the  most  prominent  lawyers  in  the 
country.  These  eminent  and  conservative  men  wrote, 
"We  make  no  argument  in  favor  of  any  radical  doc- 
trine, as  such,  whether  socialist,  communist,  or  an- 
archist. No  one  of  us  belongs  to  any  of  these  schools 
of  thought.  Nor  do  we  now  raise  any  question  as  to 
the  Constitutional  protection  of  free  speech  and  a 
free  press.  We  are  concerned  solely  with  bringing 
to  the  attention  of  the  American  people  the  utterly 
illegal  acts  which  have  been  committed  by  those 
charged  with  the  highest  duty  of  enforcing  the  laws — 
acts  which  have  caused  widespread  suffering  and 
unrest,  have  struck  at  the  foundation  of  American 
free  institutions,  and  have  brought  the  name  of  GUI' 
country  into  disrepute." 

We  must  beware  of  assuming  that  America  belongs 
to  us  alone,  and  not  to  those  who  disagree  with  us. 
We  must  remember  what  Lincoln  said:  "This  coun- 
try, with  its  institutions,  belongs  to  the  people  who 
inhabit  it."  To  those  who  seem  to  us  "radicals,"  or 
"bourgeois,"  or  "Bourbons,"  as  well  as  to  those  who 
agree  with  us.  It  takes  many  kinds  of  people  to 
make  a  great  country.  It  may  happen  that  one  class 
of  people,  getting  into  power,  is  able  to  run  things 


56  LIBERTY 

in  its  own  way  for  a  while,  and  to  make  it  unsafe  for 
another  class  of  people  to  advocate  another  way  of 
doing  things.  But  nothing  could  be  more  disastrous 
than  for  them  to  exercise  that  power. 

The  imperious  reason  why  freedom  of  speech  is 
desirable  is  not  the  hardship  brought  upon  those  who 
differ  from  the  dominant  views,  but  the  need  of  the 
ideas  that  every  one  has  to  contribute.  New  and 
better  ideas  are  always  at  first  in  a  minority,  always 
unpopular,  usually  deemed  dangerous  and  immoral 
by  the  more  conservative  majority.  It  was  so  with 
the  ideas  of  Socrates,  and  with  the  ideas  of  a  greater 
than  Socrates,  the  Founder  of  our  own  faith.  It  was 
so  with  the  early  Christians,  whose  views  were  so 
universally  thought  to  be  immoral  that  they  were 
persecuted  even  by  the  wise  and  gentle  Marcus 
Aurelius.  In  a  given  case  we  may  feel  certain  that 
the  opinion  or  ideal  we  are  repressing  is  highly  unde- 
sirable ;  but  we  fail  to  realize  that  the  repressive  atti- 
tude is  even  more  dangerous.  As  Lecky  has  said, 
"The  persecutor  can  never  be  certain  that  he  is  not 
persecuting  truth  rather  than  error,  but  he  can 
always  be  certain  that  he  is  suppressing  the  spirit 
of  truth." 

Democracy  implies  not  only  government  by  ma- 
jorities, but  freedom  of  criticism  and  agitation  by 
minorities,  the  facilitation  of  the  development  of 
minorities  into  majorities,  the  maintenance  of  oppor- 
tunities for  the  hearing  of  everyone's  opinion  and  for 
the  making  of  whatever  social  or  political  changes 
the  majority  can  be  brought  by  open  agitation  to 
approve.  How  can  we  be  sure  that  we  have  the  best 
possible  system  unless  we  listen  to  what  every  critic, 
every  agitator,  every  idealist,  has  to  say?  The  proper 
way  to  combat  one-sided  and  impracticable  ideals  is 


FREE  SPEECH  57 

to  show  their  unreason,  to  meet  argument  by  argu- 
ment, to  put  no  artificial  barriers  in  the  way  of  free 
discussion,  but  to  trust  to  common-sense  (reinforced 
by  the  inertia  of  conservatism )  to  put  the  brakes  upon 
unreasonable  proposals.  Mr.  Justice  Holmes  has 
stated  the  true  American  attitude  in  memorable 
words :  "When  men  have  realized  that  time  has  upset 
many  fighting  faiths,  they  may  come  to  believe  even 
more  than  they  believe  the  very  foundations  of  their 
own  conduct  that  the  ultimate  good  desired  is  better 
reached  by  free  trade  in  ideals — that  the  best  test  of 
truth  is  the  power  of  the  thought  to  get  itself  accepted 
in  the  competition  of  the  market.  .  .  .  That  at  any 
rate  is  the  theory  of  our  Constitution." 

The  seriousness  of  the  repressive  tendency  lies  not 
merely  in  the  shutting  of  the  mouths  of  the  actual 
radicals,  but  in  the  inevitable  lumping  together  by 
the  repressionists  of  all  liberals  and  reformers  with 
the  radicals,  and  thus  the  checking  of  all  movements 
for  genuine  political  or  social  progress.  It  may  well 
be  argued  that  the  policy  of  the  American  Govern- 
ment has  suffered  greatly  since  the  signing  of  the 
Armistice  through  the  lack  of  enlightened  public 
criticism,  the  result  of  the  censorship  and  repression 
of  discussion  unfavorable  to  the  policies  of  the 
administration. 

At  any  rate,  however  exceptional  may  be  the  case 
in  wartime,  an  era  of  peace  should  welcome  the  de- 
velopment of  individual  thought,  however  contrary 
to  accepted  doctrines  it  may  be.  We  should  say,  as 
Voltaire  said  to  Helvetius,  "I  wholly  disapprove  of 
what  you  say  and  will  defend  to  the  death  your  right 
to  say  it."  Or  as  Elihu  Root  lately  put  it,  "Men  in 
a  self-governing  democracy  must  have  a  love  of  liberty 


58  LIBERTY 

that  means  not  merely  one's  own  liberty  but  others' 
liberty." 

Badicalism  is  not  one  single,  united,  sinister,  red- 
handed  thing.  Eadicalism  is  a  name  for  a  great 
number  of  very  diverse  theories,  largely  incompatible 
with  one  another,  and  mostly  actuated  by  idealistic 
and  humanitarian  motives.  Selfish  and  anti-social 
motives  are  probably  no  commoner  among  radicals 
than  among  conservatives.  What  we  should  do, 
then,  is  to  encourage  discussion  of  radical  ideas  to 
the  utmost,  develop  our  Open  Forum  movements,  our 
Neighborhood  Centers,  our  political  clubs,  air  these 
new  ideas,  develop  newer  ideas,  confront  them  in 
reasoned  debate  with  older  ideas.  The  fear  that 
America  will  be  destroyed  by  such  a  procedure  is  a 
childish  fear.  We  are  not  so  near  the  brink  of 
collapse  that  we  need  to  fear  what  anyone  has  to  say. 
On  the  contrary,  if  the  method  of  repression  grows 
upon  us  and  becomes  a  settled  policy,  much  that  is 
best  in  American  life  will  already  have  disappeared. 

SUGGESTED  READINGS 

J.  B.  Bury,  History  o.f  Freedom  of  Thought. 

Zechariah  Chaffee,  Jr.,  Freedom  of  Speech. 

Publications  of  the  American  Sociological  Society,  vol.  9. 

Graham  Wallas,  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  125,  p.  116. 

J.  H.  Robinson,  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  120,  p.  811. 

John  Dewey,  in  The  New  Republic,  vol.  12,  p.  128. 

Vida  Scudder,  in  Century  Magazine,  vol.  70,  p.  222. 

Alexander  Meiklejohn,  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  121,  p.  83. 

J.  M.  Cattell,  in  School  and  Society,  vol.  6,  p.  421. 

H.  J.  Laski,  in  New  Republic,  vol.  21,  p.  335. 

Roscoe  Pound,  in  Harvard  Law  Review,  vol.  28,  pp.  445,  453. 

American  Civil  Liberties  Union;  Report  upon  the  Illegal  Prac- 
tices of  the  United  States  Department  of  Justice  (May, 
1920). 

Publications  of  the  Free  Speech  League,  120  Lexington  Avenue. 
New  York,  N.  Y. 

E.  Ritchie,  in  International  Journal  of  Ethics,  vol.  14,  p.  161. 


CHAPTER  VII 

LAW   AND  ORDER 

THERE  is  one  sort  of  person,  and  only  one,  that  the 
machinery  of  repression  should  be  turned  against — 
the  person  who  breaks  or  urges  the  breaking  of  the 
laws  of  the  land.  Detest  as  we  may  a  man's  opinions, 
we  most  give  them  free  room  unless  they  call  for  the 
violation  of  laws,  or  the  use  of  violence  to  subvert 
the  existing  order.  On  the  other  hand,  however  we 
may  sympathize  with  the  ideals  of  some  revolutionist, 
and  much  as  we  may  desire  with  him  to  see  some 
obnoxious  law  repealed,  we  cannot  tolerate  the  pro- 
posal to  disobey  it  while  it  remains  upon  the  statute- 
books.  The  lawabiding  spirit  is  the  prime  essential 
for  the  success  of  a  democracy. 

It  is  true  that  we  all  sympathize  with  the  great 
revolutionists  of  the  past — with  Gambetta  and 
Kossuth  and  Garibaldi,  with  the  French  and  Russian 
revolutionists,  and  our  own  forefathers,  who  refused 
to  obey  the  laws  of  their  sovereign  and  by  violence 
achieved  a  new  political  order.  It  is  true  that,  as 
Gladstone  said,  "If  the  people  of  this  country  had 
obeyed  the  precept  to  preserve  order  and  eschew  vio- 
lence, the  liberties  of  this  country  would  never  have 
been  obtained."  But  these  resorts  to  violent  means 
were  justified  because  no  peaceful  channel  was  open 
for  reform,  and  because  the  benefit  sought  by  the 
arbitrament  of  war  was  for  a  whole  people,  not  for 
a  section  or  class.  In  a  democracy  like  ours  any  alter- 

59 


60  LIBERTY 

ation  in  the  political  or  industrial  order  is  possible; 
it  is  merely  a  question  of  winning  the  approval  of  a 
majority  of  the  people.  And  no  change  ought  to  be 
made  without  the  verdict  of  that  approval.  The 
South  attempted  a  sectional  schism,  and  was  deci- 
sively defeated,  as  any  section  or  class  will  be  that 
seeks  to  free  itself  from  the  common  law  of  the  land. 
The  issue  of  that  war  decided  that,  as  Lincoln  put  it, 
"among  free  men  there  can  be  no  successful  appeal 
from  the  ballot  to  the  bullet." 

The  evil  of  violence  lies  not  merely  in  the  specific 
bloodshed  and  economic  destruction  effected,  but  in 
the  precedent  set.  Human  nature  is  all  too  prone 
to  resort  to  blows  instead  of  argument;  and  if  this 
group  or  that  were  to  win  their  point  by  lawbreaking, 
or  some  illegal  coup  d'etat,  other  groups  would  be 
powerfully  encouraged  to  yield  to  their  impatience 
with  the  slow  growth  of  public  opinion  and  try  the 
same  short  cut  to  the  result  they  desire.  There  is  no 
case  in  the  whole  field  of  morals  where  it  is  more 
important  that  everyone  shall  keep  to  a  code,  in  spite 
of  whatever  immediate  sacrifice.  The  code  of  law- 
abidingness  must  have  the  loyalty  of  every  citizen, 
or  we  shall  soon  find  ourselves  drifting  into  chaos. 

Moreover,  even  a  successful  revolution  achieved  by 
a  class  or  group  within  the  nation  would  not  be 
stable;  no  change  in  the  mechanism  of  politics  or 
industry  would  be  permanent  that  did  not  rest  upon 
the  sincere  conviction  of  the  majority  of  the  people. 
And  when  that  majority  is  secured,  violence  is  no 
longer  necessary  to  secure  the  change.  Violence, 
on  the  contrary,  stimulates  opposition,  increases 
estrangements,  encourages  the  use  of  counter-violence, 
makes  it  harder  for  classes  to  work  together  and 
understand  one  another.  Yet  work  together  we  must, 


LAW  AND  ORDER  61 

in  the  end,  and  learn  to  use  peaceful  means  for 
making  changes.  The  slow  road  of  education,  propa- 
ganda, campaigning,  and  the  ballot,  will  be  in  the 
long  run  the  quickest  road  to  the  attainment  of  any 
reform  that  is  genuinely  desirable. 

Unhappily,  respect  for  the  slow  processes  of  law 
is  not  a  mark  of  a  pioneer  country;  and  our  nation, 
strong  with  the  strength  of  youth  and  rich  with  the 
exploitation  of  the  virgin  resources  of  a  continent, 
has  not  yet  fully  learned  the  necessity  of  restraint. 
Lord  Bryce  has  declared  that  our  greatest  fault  is 
"the  disposition  to  be  lax  in  enforcing  laws  disliked 
by  any  large  part  of  the  population,  to  tolerate 
breaches  of  public  order,  to  be  too  indulgent  to 
offenders  generally." 

The  most  flagrant  example  of  our  lawlessness  is, 
of  course,  the  lynchings  we  tolerate.  In  the  past 
thirty  years  over  three  thousand  people  have  been 
put  to  death  by  mobs  in  this  country — a  record  worse 
than  that  of  any  other  contemporary  civilized  State, 
up  to  the  time  of  the  Great  War.  The  number  of 
annual  lynchings  has  begun  to  decrease  appreciably; 
but  some  of  the  most  brutal  and  inexcusable  of  these 
mob  murders  have  been  perpetrated  within  the  past 
few  years.  The  fact  that  more  than  three-quarters 
of  the  victims  were  negroes  points  to  the  factor  of 
race  prejudice  but  does  not  in  the  least  palliate  the 
crimes.  The  offence  charged  has  by  no  means  always 
been  rape — the  suspicion  of  which  most  arouses 
human  passions ;  in  many  cases  the  alleged  crime  was 
of  a  trivial  character.  And  in  very  many  cases  the 
evidence  of  the  guilt  of  the  victim  has  been  meager. 
Certainly  in  a  number  of  cases  an  innocent  man  has 
been  tortured  and  hanged  or  burned  to  death.  It  is 
true  that  the  most  progressive  sections  of  the  country 


62  LIBERTY 

are  free  from  this  horror.  But  the  stain  rests  upon 
the  Nation  as  a  whole;  and  it  is  nothing  short  of 
grotesque  to  make  a  great  hue  and  cry  about  imagined 
Bolshevists  in  our  midst  when  men  and  women  of 
American  descent  thus  practise  the  most  brutal  forms 
of  violence  and  go  unpunished  therefor. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  violence  by  "Bolshevists,"  by 
anarchists,  by  radicals  of  any  sort  bent  on  terrorizing 
and  bloodshed,  has  existed  to  very  slight  extent  in 
this  country.  There  has  been  more  or  less  open 
advocacy  of  revolutionary  methods,  of  the  destruc- 
tion of  property,  by  the  prope<rtyless,  of  sabotage,  by 
underpaid  and  underfed  workers,  of  armed  revolu- 
tion, when  the  "proletariat"  could  be  brought  to  the 
point  of  revolution.  But  the  sporadic  cases  of  vio- 
lence actually  attempted  have  been  vigorously  con- 
demned by  the  rank  and  file  of  labor;  and  there  is 
absolutely  no  danger  of  armed  revolution  in  the 
present  temper  of  the  masses.  The  fact  is,  we  are 
too  prosperous ;  revolution  thrives  upon  hardship  and 
hunger.  In  spite  of  much  that  is  unjust  and  exas- 
perating in  our  social  order,  conditions  are  not  such 
as  drive  men  to  bloodshed  and  anarchy. 

It  is,  indeed,  a  fair  question  whether  more  actual 
lawbreaking  and  violence  has  not  been  committed  by 
the  noisy  advocates  of  "law  and  order,"  the  "hundred 
per  cent  Americans"  who  -oel  every  critic  of  con- 
temporary institutions  a  "Bolshevist,"  who  raid 
illegally  the  offices  of  radical  newspapers,  break  up 
Socialist  meetings  and  parades,  threaten  labor  or- 
ganizers, and  urge  the  jailing  or  deportation  of  every 
"red."  There  has  been  no  more  flagrant  violation  of 
law  than  the  Bisbee  deportations,  in  1917,  carried  out 
by  the  bitter  enemies  of  organized  labor — an  outrage 
for  which  no  punishment  was  ever  inflicted.  There 


LAW  AND  ORDER  63 

has  been  probably  more  violence  committed  in  time 
of  strikes  by  the  strikebreakers  and  hired  servants 
of  the  employers  than  by  the  strikers. 

In  any  case,  whatever  the  facts  may  be  as  to  the 
past,  we  must  be  stern  to  repress  illegal  action  in  the 
future,  whether  committed  by  a  lower  class  or  an 
upper  class,  by  an  I.  W.  W.  agitator  or  the  hired  thug 
of  a  great  corporation. 

But  it  is  not  enough  to  repress  violence,  we  must 
seek  to  counteract  the  influences  that  lead  to  it. 
Among  those  influences  there  are  three  of  chief  im- 
portance. In  the  first  place,  there  is  the  conviction, 
current  here  and  there  among  the  lower  classes,  that 
the  social  order  is  weighted  against  them,  that  they 
have  no  hope  of  securing  their  share  of  the  good 
things  of  life  except  through  some  violent  convulsion. 
This  conviction  we  must  combat  by  promoting  a  dis- 
cussion of  their  grievances,  real  or  supposed,  and 
focusing  the  attention  of  publicists.,  and  legislators 
upon  their  cure.  If  these  disaffected  people  can  be 
shown  that  their  government  is  sincerely  interested 
in  their  welfare — shown  by  acts  as  well  as  by  plat- 
form promises — they  will  cease  to  look  to  extra- 
governmental  means  for  improving  their  condition. 

In  the  second  place,  the  upper  classes,  those  who 
are  well  off  under  our  present  system  of  laws,  must 
cease  to  regard  that  system  as  sacrosanct.  Reverence 
for  law  and  order  means  properly  the  insistence  upon 
using  the  ballot  alone  for  altering  the  legal  struc- 
ture, not  the  insistence  upon  retaining  unmodified  a 
given  social  system.  Criticism  of  our  laws,  even  of 
our  Constitution,  is  not  equivalent  to  advocacy  of 
disobedience  to  these  laws  while  they  remain  on  the 
statute-books.  To  brand  as  "disloyal"  every  honest 
thinker  who  holds  that  our  present  system  can  be 


64  LIBEKTY 

improved  upon  is  to  cheapen  respect  for  that  system. 
It  has  often  been  true  that  the  most  devoted  patriots 
have  been  the  keenest  critics  of  their  country's  poli- 
cies and  laws.  It  is  possible  to  criticize  our  existing 
political  or  industrial  system,  not  because  we  do  not 
love  our  country,  but  precisely  because  we  love  her 
too  well  to  be  content  that  she  should  have  any  but 
the  most  ideal  system  that  can  be  devised.  To  assume 
that  wisdom  died  with  our  fathers,  and  that  the  laws 
they  conceived  are  to  be  petrified  and  made  un- 
changeable is  to  belie  the  spirit  of  those  valiant 
reformers  and  to  supplant  Americanism  with  Bour- 
bonism — the  maintenance  of  what  is,  simply  because 
it  is  to  some  people's  advantage  to  keep  it  as  it  is. 

In  the  third  place,  and  most  important  of  all,  if 
lawlessness  on  the  part  of  the  disaffected  is  to  be 
avoided,  they  must  be  given  every  opportunity  to  air 
their  opinions  openly  and  without  fear.  Deny  men 
the  right  of  free  speech,  and  you  foster  in  them  the 
revolutionary  spirit.  Nothing  cheapens  the  author- 
ity of  the  laws  more  than  the  browbeating  of  those 
who  protest  against  them.  Free  speech,  and  plenty 
of  it,  is  the  great  safety  valve;  conversely,  as 
President  Wilson  has  put  it,  "repression  is  the  seed 
of  revolution." 

This,  then,  is  an  argument  for  free  speech  perhaps 
even  more  important  than  those  we  discussed  in  the 
preceding  chapter.  No  argument  for  any  existing 
law  or  custom  will  weigh  with  those  who  chafe  under 
it  unless  they  feel  perfectly  free,  with  safety,  to 
express  their  arguments  against  it.  The  utter 
futility  of  the  repression  policy  is  obvious  to  any 
careful  observer,  or,  indeed,  to  any  student  of  psy- 
chology. The  suppressed  ideas  do  not  vanish,  they 
work  underground,  and,  like  steam  without  an  outlet, 


LAW  AND  OEDER  65 

become  more  and  more  explosive.  On  the  other  hand, 
as  Mr.  Justice  Holmes  recently  wrote,  "with  effer- 
vescing opinions,  as  with  the  not  yet  forgotten  cham- 
pagnes, the  quickest  way  to  let  them  get  flat  is  to  let 
them  get  exposed  to  the  air." 

In  a  society  as  complex  as  ours,  there  is  bound  to 
be  disaffection.  No  sensible  person  can  suppose  that 
our  present  civilization  achieves  the  maximum  of 
human  welfare  obtainable.  If  there  were  no  unrest, 
there  would  be  no  hope  of  progress.  Our  danger  is 
not  in  unrest,  it  is  in  unrest  that  is  suppressed, 
ignored,  inarticulate.  Our  hope  is  in  unrest  that 
crystallizes  into  concrete  proposals  which  can  be 
debated  until  they  convert  the  majority  or  disappear 
through  the  impact  of  sound  and  fair-minded  argu- 
ment. Institutions  inherently  justifiable  will  never 
be  overthrown  by  iconoclastic  agitators,  they  may  be 
overthrown  only  if  they  are  artificially  protected 
from  criticism  and  hence  come  to  be  regarded  a8 
without  reasonable  justification. 

One  of  the  sanest  proposals  of  recent  years  is  that 
of  the  eminent  sociologist,  Dr.  Edward  T.  Devine: 
"Let  all  of  those  who  have  grievances  be  openly  .  .  . 
invited  to  voice  them.  Let  President  Wilson  and 
every  governor  and  every  mayor  designate  great 
public  meeting  places — in  halls  and  in  public  parks — 
where  the  freely  chosen  representatives  of  every 
group  .  .  .  may  express  their  views.  Let  the  secret 
service  men  attend,  not  to  find  victims  for  prosecu- 
tion, but  to  catch  the  faintest  whisper  of  a  just  com- 
plaint. Let  legislative  assemblies  give  patient  hear- 
ing to  delegates  who  come  to  them  from  such  assem- 
blies. Let  grand  juries  weigh  their  complaints, 
whether  against  individuals  or  against  any  existing 
abuse  which  might  be  remedied.  Let  the  industries 


66  LIBERTY 

be  represented  by  their  detectives,  not  to  spot  agita- 
tors to  discharge  them,  but  to  make  careful  notes  of 
any  bad  practises  which  might  be  reformed.  .  .  .  Let 
it  be  considered  bad  form  to  characterize  any  man  as  a 
Bolshevist  merely  because  you  do  not  agree  with  him. 
.  .  .  Let  us  have  parades  of  Socialists  or  Communists, 
or  Christians,  or  any  other  sect  that  can  muster 
enough  enthusiasm  and  confidence  in  their  cause  to 
make  a  showing.  Let  us  make  it  the  greatest  offense 
against  morals  and  manners  to  silence  the  voice  of  a 
prophet;  to  refuse  a  respectful  hearing  to  those  who 
speak  in  the  name  of  a  more  perfect  justice,  in  the 
name  of  a  better  social  order." 

So  we  are  brought  to  the  conclusion  that  as  law  is 
not  the  enemy  of  liberty,  so  lawlessness  is  the  product 
not  of  liberty  but  of  its  denial.  It  is  not  less  liberty 
that  we  need,  but  more.  If  we  would  avoid  the  law- 
less state  through  which  Mexico,  for  example,  has 
been  passing,  we  must  guard  against  that  assumption 
of  despotic  power  and  that  denial  of  popular  rights 
which  has  engendered  there  a  contempt  for  the  ballot 
as  the  means  of  reform  and  an  impatience  of  the 
restraints  of  law.  Obedience  to  law  can  be  expected 
only  if  the  law  represents  the  free  will  and  sincere 
convictions  of  the  people.  The  Pilgrims,  drawing  up 
the  Famous  Mayflower  Compact,  November  11,  1620, 
pledged  to  yield  to  their  laws  "all  due  submission  and 
obedience" ;  but  they  offered  their  allegiance  because 
the  laws  were  their  own,  not  imposd  upon  them  from 
above. 

Washington,  in  his  Farewell  Address,  declared 
that  "the  very  idea  of  the  power  and  the  right  of  the 
people  to  establish  Government  presupposes  the  duty 
of  every  individual  to  obey  the  established  Govern- 
ment." Jefferson,  in  his  First  Inaugural,  asserted 


LAW  AND  ORDER  67 

that  liberty  is  to  be  secured  only  "by  absolute  acqui- 
escence in  the  decisions  of  the  majority;  the  vital 
principle  of  republics,  from  which  there  is  no  appeal 
but  to  force,  the  vital  principle  and  immediate  parent 
of  despotism." 

This  principle  was  reaffirmed  by  Lincoln  in  these 
well-known  words:  "Let  every  American,  every 
lover  of  liberty,  every  well-wisher  to  his  posterity 
swear  by  the  blood  of  the  Eevolution  never  to  violate 
in  the  least  particular  the  laws  of  the  country,  and 
never  to  tolerate  their  violation  by  others.  As  the 
patriots  of  '76  did  to  the  support  of  the  Declaration 
of  Independence,  so  to  the  support  of  the  Constitu- 
tion and  the  laws,  let  every  American  pledge  his  life, 
his  property,  and  his  sacred  honor;  let  every  man 
remember  that  to  violate  the  law  is  to  trample  upon 
the  blood  of  his  fathers  and  to  tear  the  charter  of  his 
own  and  his  children's  liberty.  Let  reverence  for  the 
laws  be  breathed  by  every  American  mother  to  the 
lisping  babe  that  prattles  on  her  lap.  Let  it  be  taught 
in  schools,  in  seminaries,  and  in  colleges.  Let  it  be 
written  in  primers,  spelling  books,  and  almanacs. 
Let  it  be  preached  from  the  pulpits,  proclaimed  in 
legislative  halls,  and  enforced  in  courts  of  justice. 
In  short,  let  it  become  the  political  religion  of  the 
Nation." 

And  finally,  Roosevelt,  speaking  at  Columbus,  Sep- 
tember 10,  1910,  declared,  ™The  first  essential  to  the 
achievement  of  justice  is  that  law  and  order  shall  ob- 
tain, that  violence  shall  be  repressed,  that  the  orderly 
course  of  law  shall  be  unobstructed,  and  that  those 
r  who  commit  violence  shall  be  sternly  punished." 

This  is  the  American  tradition.  It  is  broken  by 
anyone  who  urges  bomb-throwing,  assassination,  dis- 
obedience to  the  laws,  arrest  without  warrant,  punish- 


68  LIBEETY 

ment  without  due  trial  by  jury,  the  incitement  of  class 
against  class,  suppression  of  free  speech  and  a  free 
press,  the  branding  by  opprobrious  names  of  those 
with  whom  we  disagree,  the  use  of  any  means  but 
open  argument  and  the  ballot-box  either  for  the 
attaining  of  a  better  order  or  the  maintenance  of  the 
order  that  now  is.  We  are  passing  through  perilous 
times,  and  may  have  to  pass  through  times  still  more 
perilous.  But  no  harm  will  come  to  the  American 
Eepublic  if  we  remain  true  to  our  heritage  of  liberty 
for  all  urithin  the  law. 

SUGGESTED  READINGS 

Theodore  Koosevelt,  The  New  Nationalism:  Law,  Order  and 

Justice. 

W.  H.  Hamilton,  Current  Economic  Problems,  pp.  637-646. 
Durant  Drake,  Problems  of  Conduct,  pp.  410-413. 
P.  F.  Brissenden,  The  Launching  of  the  I.  W.  W. 
J.  E.  Cutler,  Lynch-Law. 
J.  G.  Brooks,  American  Syndicalism. 
Ole  Hanson,  Americanism  vs.  Bolshevism. 
G.  Sorel,  Reflections  on  Violence. 

J.  Spargo,  Syndicalism,  Industrial  Unionism,  and  Socialism. 
Thorstein  Veblen,  On  the  Nature  and  Uses  of  Sabotage. 
Roland  Hugins,  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  123,  p.  701. 
Thirty  Years  of  Lynching  in  the  United  States,  published  by 

the  National  Association  for  the  Advancement  of  Colored 

People,  70  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York,  N.  Y. 
H.  R.  Mussey,  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  109,  p.  441. 


PART  TWO 
EQUALITY 


CHAPTER  VIII 

JUSTICE    FOR   ALL 

THE  Declaration  of  Independence  asserts  that  "all 
men  are  created  equal."  This  is  not,  of  course,  the 
announcement  of  a  biological  law,  but  an  emphatic 
way  of  saying  that  all  men  ought  to  have  equality  of 
treatment — equal  security  for  life  and  limb,  equal 
access  to  the  means  for  developing  their  capacities, 
equal  opportunities  for  the  pursuit  of  happiness. 
There  must  be  here  no  hereditary  office  or  rank,  or 
social  class ;  every  career  must  be  open  to  anyone  who 
can  make  good  in  it.  ^*EYery  flmftr-uwi  JR  as  gpod_ 
as  his  brains  and  character  and  manners7~an9Tnft  _ 
better."  This  is  the  second  great  principle  of 
Americanism.  De  Tocqueville  hardly  exaggerated 
when  he  said  that  we  were  so  devoted  to  it  that  we 
had  rather  be  equal  in  slavery  than  unequal  in 
freedom. 

Equality  cannot  be  secured  by  a  mere  absence  of 
discriminatory  laws  and  customs.  Life  is  like  a 
handicap  race;  much  must  be  done  for  the  weaker 
among  us  to  secure  for  them  an  opportunity  for  hap- 
piness equal  to  that  of  their  stronger  or  more  for- 
tunate neighbors.  But  the  foundation  must  be  laid 
in  an  absolute  equality  of  all  citizens  before  the  law. 
Not  only  must  every  citizen  have  the  protection  of 
the  law  from  injustice  and  injury,  anywhere  in  the 
world,  on  land  or  on  sea,  and  a  right  to  fair  trial  by 
due  process,  whenever  accused  of  wrongdoing,  but, 

71 


72  EQUALITY 

most  essential  of  all,  he  must  have  assurance  of  an 
administration  of  justice  that  is  impartial  toward 
rich  and  poor,  high  and  low,  educated  and  ignorant, 
white  and  black. 

If  we  have  had  no  personal  experience  to  refute  our 
optimism,  we  shall  naturally  assume  that  this  is  the 
case  in  America.  But  a  little  study  of  the  facts  shows 
that  our  ideal  is  not  completely  realized.  Many  of 
our  conservative  statesmen  and  lawyers,  as  well  as 
more  radical  writers,  have  expressed  opinions  similar 
to  that  of  ex-President  Taft:  "Of  all  the  questions 
which  are  before  the  American  people,  I  regard  no 
one  as  more  important  than  the  improvement  of  the 
administration  of  justice.  We  must  make  it  so  that 
the  poor  man  will  have  as  nearly  as  possible  an  equal 
opportunity  in  litigation  with  the  rich  man;  and 
under  present  conditions,  ashamed  as  we  may  be  of 
it,  this  is  not  the  fact." 

In  what  respects  is  it  not  the  fact?  Well,  in  the 
first  place,  it  costs  more  than  a  poor  man  can  afford 
to  hire  a  good  lawyer  to  defend  his  case.  The  rich 
offender  has  at  his  command  the  services  of  the 
cleverest  attorneys,  who  are  skilled  in  the  many  tech- 
nical devices  by  which  justice  can  be  delayed  or  side- 
tracked altogether.  At  least,  every  extenuating  cir- 
cumstance will  be  emphasized,  every  precedent  favor- 
able to  his  case  will  be  hunted  up,  every  resource  of 
dialectic  and  persuasion  brought  to  bear  upon  the 
witnesses  and  the  jury.  A  highly  paid  alienist  may 
testify  to  a  temporary  fit  of  insanity  on  the  part  of 
his  client.  Altogether,  cases  are  well  known  in  which 
rich  men  guilty  of  the  worst  crimes  have  escaped  with 
light  penalties  or  with  none. 

The  law  does,  indeed,  provide  for  the  defense  of 
every  man  accused  of  crime,  by  assigning  counsel  to 


JUSTICE  FOE  ALL  73 

those  who  cannot  afford  their  own  lawyers.  But 
these  are  usually  unsuccessful  lawyers,  no  match  for 
the  rich  man's  attorneys,  and  often  little  interested  in 
the  cases  assigned  to  them.  It  is  a  common  belief 
among  the  criminal  classes  that  conviction  or  ac- 
quittal depends  upon  the  sum  they  can  pay  to^their 
counsel.  There  are  a  great  number  of  "shyster" 
lawyers  who  get  what  fees  they  can  collect  from  the 
poor,  and  render  little  or  no  service  in  return;  in 
some  cases  they  do  not  even  take  the  trouble  to  go 
to  court  when  the  case  comes  up. 

An  ex-convict,  writing  in  the  Outlook  for  Decem- 
ber 27,  1916,  declares  that  among  the  men  who  went 
to  trial  "a  majority  seemed  to  believe  that  freedom 
or  imprisonment  was  largely  a  matter  of  money.  If 
they  could  raise  enough  of  this  to  secure  certain 
lawyers,  the  result  was  almost  foreordained.  And 
certainly  there  appeared  solid  ground  for  this  belief 
in  that  these  men  did  secure  verdicts  of  'not  guilty' 
for  several  scores  of  prisoners  who  had  made  little 
secret  of  their  guilt  while  among  us.  ...  Study  of 
the  situation  reveals  that  not  more  than  ten  per  cent 
of  criminals  have  the  means  to  engage  really  capable 
attorneys.  And  usually  these  are  of  the  types  most 
dangerolis  to  society.  .  .  .  The  criminal  lawyers  .  .  . 
have  taught  the  professional  criminal  that  he  can 
'get  away  with  anything  short  of  murder'  if  he  has 
the  money." 

Now,  however  common  or  unusual  this  situation 
may  be,  it  is  intolerable  that  even  the  suspicion  of 
it  should  rest  upon  our  judicial  system.  At  least  this 
much  should  be  done:  defense,  like  prosecution, 
should  be  recognized  as  a  public  matter ;  there  should 
be  Public  Defenders,  as  well  paid  as  prosecuting  at- 
torneys, well  enough  paid  to  attract  to  the  position 


74  EQUALITY 

men  of  ability  and  experience.  The  securing  of  jus- 
tice requires  as  great  skill  in  defense  as  in  prosecu- 
tion, and  an  equal  skill  available  to  rich  and  poor. 
If  this  plan,  already  in  practice  in  some  American 
communities,  is  universally  applied,  we  may  hope  to 
substitute  in  the  minds  of  the  poor  a  genuine  respect 
for  the  law  for  the  contempt  and  fear  that  they  now 
too  often  feel.  Society  must  be  protected  equally 
against  jugglery  of  law  and  evidence  in  favor  of  the 
rich  offender,  and  an  inadequate  hearing  of  the  case 
of  the  poor. 

Still  more  serious  than  this  weighting  of  the  scales 
of  justice  in  favor  of  rich  offenders  is  the  trend  of 
judicial  decisions  and  interpretations  in  favor  of  the 
possessing  classes  as  against  the  working-man.  It 
has  been  often  said,  and  not  without  show  of  reason, 
that  the  majority  of  our  lawyers  and  judges,  coming 
from  the  upper  stratum  of  society,  are  unconsciously 
prejudiced  in  favor  of  property  rights  as  against 
human  rights.  This,  at  least,  is  a  widespread  con- 
viction among  the  poorer  classes ;  and  it  must  receive 
the  gravest  attention;  for  nothing  could  bode  more 
ill  for  our  Republic  than  the  growth  of  this  conviction 
that  justice  is  a  class  affair. 

To  realize  the  extent  of  this  conviction  we  have 
but  to  read  the  resolutions  unanimously  adopted  by 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor  at  its  convention 
in  1919.  An  extract  follows:  "Our  organization  of 
law  presents  a  mass  of  inconsistencies  and  contradic- 
tions. While  organizations  of  capital  are  encouraged 
and  protected,  combinations  of  workers  are  con- 
stantly attacked.  While  employers  may  unite  and 
combine  against  workers  and  against  the  buying 
public,  the  right  of  the  workers  to  resist  encroach- 
ments and  to  right  admitted  wrongs  is  constantly 


JUSTICE  FOE  ALL  75 

toeing  interfered  with.  .  .  .  Whenever  an  officer  of  an 
incorporated  financial,  industrial,  or  commercial  en- 
terprise exceeds  the  power  specifically  delegated  to 
him,  the  courts  declare  his  act  ultra  vires  and  the 
company  is  absolved  from  all  responsibility.  But 
when  a  labor  man  at  a  trade  union  meeting  makes 
utterances  which  are  condemned  by  those  in  author- 
ity, the  union  and  its  members  may  be  robbed  of  their 
funds  and  savings. 

"It  was  the  spirit  of  the  jurisprudence  of  slavery 
which  forbade  the  slaves  the  opportunity  to  read  to 
defend  themselves;  and  so  it  is  the  jurisprudence  of 
employers  of  today  to  continue  doctrines  which  deny 
the  workers  a  full  opportunity  of  defence.  The  time 
has  passed,  however,  when  our  courts  should  be 
longer  permitted  to  devise  legal  doctrines  and  design 
local  fictions  by  which  to  deny  the  wage  earners  equal 
rights  and  privileges  before  the  law  .  .  . 

"The  power  of  our  courts  to  declare  legislation 
unconstitutional  and  void  is  a  most  flagrant  usurpa- 
tion of  power  and  authority  by  our  courts  and  is  a 
repudiation  and  denial  of  the  principle  of  self-govern- 
ment recognized  now  as  a  world  doctrine.  The  con- 
tinued exercise  of  this  unwarranted  power  is  a  blas- 
phemy on  the  rights  and  claims  of  free  men  of 
America." 

We  have  already  had  occasion  to  notice  that  there 
have  been  a  great  number  of  cases  in  which  humani- 
tarian legislation,  legislation  favoring  working-men 
and  women,  has  been  set  aside  as  unconstitutional  by 
the  courts  because  it  interfered  with  property  rights. 
Eight-hour,  and  even  ten-hour,  laws;  laws  forbidding 
tenement-house  labor  of  certain  sorts;  laws  forbid- 
ding child-labor ;  laws  requiring  payment  of  wages  in 
cash  instead  of  truck;  a  law  forbidding  employers  to 


76  EQUALITY 

discharge  employees  for  being  members  of  a  labor 
union,  have  thus  been  annulled  by  the  courts.  In 
1917  the  Supreme  Court  went  even  further,  and 
declared  that  a  Labor  Union  has  no  right,  against  an 
employer's  wish,  to  urge  his  workmen  to  join  the 
union.  The  New  York  State  Supreme  Court  declared 
the  workman's  compensation  law  unconstitutional, 
and  it  required  a  constitutional  amendment  to  make 
it  operative. 

At  the  same  time  that  the  Courts  have  thus  been 
annulling  laws  passed  in  the  interest  of  the  weaker 
members  of  society,  they  have  been  sustaining  the 
powers  of  the  great  Corporations,  and  making  possi- 
ble the  prodigious  profit-takings  of  the  past  few  dec- 
ades. It  is  no  wonder,  then,  that  not  only  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  laboring  classes,  but  many  members 
of  the  professional  classes,  have  felt  that  the  Courts 
were  essentially  a  class-institution.  A  distinguished 
student  of  public  affairs  wrote  with  some  bitterness, 
in  1919,  "Within  the  last  year  the  case  of  the  United 
States  against  the  Standard  Oil  Company  for  viola- 
tion of  the  statutes  directed  against  rebates  was  dis- 
missed by  the  courts,  while  the  officers  of  the  Ameri- 
can Federation  of  Labor  were  committed  to  jail  for 
alleged  violation  of  a  court  order." 

It  is  useless  to  expect,  of  course,  that  prejudice  will 
not  enter  into  judicial  decisions.  All  men  are  full 
of  prejudices;  lawyers  and  judges  are  no  exception. 
The  fact  that  there  are  precedents  available  for 
almost  any  possible  decision,  and  that  judges  differ 
upon  almost  every  disputed  case,  means  that  the  ele- 
ment of  unconscious  bias  must  be  a  considerable  fac- 
tor. What  is  essential,  then,  is  that  judges  should  be 
drawn  from  all  classes  of  cociety,  subject  to  all  the 
conflicting  prejudices,  and  that  decisions  of  impor- 


JUSTICE  FOR  ALL  77 

tance  should  be  made  only  by  a  two-thirds  vote,  or 
even  perhaps  a  unanimous  vote,  of  a  panel  of  judges 
representing  all  schools  of  thought. 

It  is  also  important  that  the  law  should  be  con- 
ceived not  merely  as  a  mass  of  precedents,  a  binding 
grip  of  the  past  upon  the  present,  but  that  fresh  inter- 
pretations shall  keep  our  laws  in  touch  with  changing 
conditions.  It  is  necessary  that  judges  be  men  "who 
have  a  large  comprehension  of  our  country's  needs, 
wide  conceptions  of  social  justice,  and  who  have 
creative  minds — who  can  make  legal  interpretations 
contribute  to  the  structure  of  our  government."  To 
this  end  the  law  schools  should  teach  their  students 
and  the  legal  profession  should  inculcate  among  its 
members  the  realization  that  their  ultimate  aim  must 
be  to  serve  the  welfare  of  the  country. 

But  justice  must  go  farther  than  to  treat  the  rich 
and  poor  alike,  and  to  rate  human  needs  above  prop- 
erty interests.  It  must  take  account  of  the  influences 
that  lead  certain  people  almost  irresistibly  into 
crime;  it  must  seek  to  give  them  a  fair  chance  by 
counteracting  as  far  as  possible  these  evil  forces. 
It  must  see  to  it  that  the  punishment  inflicted  for 
crime  is  not  of  such  a  nature  as  to  brutalize  and  make 
a  hardened  criminal  out  of  a  first  offender.  It  must 
see  to  it  that  a  man  who  has  fallen  once  has  every 
possible  opportunity  to  recover  his  self-respect  and 
the  respect  of  society.  In  these  aspects  of  what  we 
might  call  the  Broader  Justice,  we  must  confess  that 
we  are  only  at  the  beginning  of  imperative  reforms. 
Our  penology  may  compare  favorably  with  that  of 
some  other  countries.  But  nothing  should  content 
America  but  the  best.  And  our  present  penal  system 
is  far  short  of  what  it  ought  to  be. 

It  is  an  axiom  of  modern  criminology  that  most 


78  EQUALITY 

crime  is  preventable.  In  the  phrase  that  has  become 
familiar,  "All  men  are  possible  criminals,  and  all 
criminals  possible  men."  The  number  of  convicts 
released  for  war-service  who  won  commissions  and 
medals,  and  the  greater  number  who  made  good  in 
less  spectacular  ways,  should  convince  the  most  re- 
luctant of  the  needless  injustice  in  branding  a  man 
as  a  criminal  for  life  because  of  one  offence.  It  should 
also  show  that  what  a  man  becomes  depends  largely 
upon  the  nature  of  his  environment  and  opportuni- 
ties. We  have  been  too  slow  to  discriminate  between 
the  pathological,  hopeless  criminal,  and  the  man 
whom  we  might  call  a  chance  offender,  a  victim  of 
circumstances.  Toward  the  latter  we  need  the  hum- 
bler and  more  generous  attitude  expressed  in  the 
words  attributed  to  various  godly  lips,  "There  but 
for  the  Grace  of  God  go  I !" 

Perhaps  a  third  of  the  inmates  of  our  prisons 
showed  signs  in  childhood  or  youth  of  abnormality. 
They  should  have  been  carefully  watched  by  the 
school  medical  examiners  and  either  given  a  special 
corrective  treatment  or  education,  or,  if  necessary, 
removed  from  the  pressure  of  an  environment  in 
which  they  were  practically  sure  to  go  wrong.  Most; 
of  these  defectives  and  abnormal  individuals  could  be 
kept  from  crime  and  made  into  self-supporting  citi- 
zens by  proper  precautions.  The  more  hopeless  ones 
should  have  been  put  where  they  could  never  have 
been  dangerous  to  society,  without  waiting  for  the 
harm  to  be  done  and  the  stigma  of  "criminal"  to 
attach  to  them. 

As  to  the  other  two-thirds  of  our  criminals,  prob- 
ably more  than  half  would  have  kept  clear  of  crime 
but  for  the  pressure  of  poverty,  of  over-hard  and 
unpleasant  work,  of  crowded,  noisy,  unsanitary, 


JUSTICE  FOE  ALL  79 

uncomfortable  homes.  The  provision  of  adequate 
housing  accommodations  and  decently  pleasant  work- 
ing conditions,  with  reasonable  hours  and  wages ;  and 
the  securing  of  education  for  everyone,  so  that  all 
can  earn  an  honest  living  and  have  resources  for  their 
leisure  hours, — these  are  the  minimum  requirements 
of  our  American  ideal  of  justice  for  all. 

There  will  still  be  those  who  will  yield  to  passion 
or  seductive  temptation  and  commit  anti-social  acts. 
With  these  our  aim  should  be  not  revenge  but  refor- 
mation. Most  of  these  offenders,  if  treated  kindly 
and  trained  in  social  co-operation,  would  come  to 
regret  their  mistake  and  would  emerge  from  their 
imprisonment  with  a  resolve  never  to  return.  But 
this  is  a  matter  for  expert  treatment,  as  far  removed 
as  A  from  Z  from  the  incredibly  stupid  treatment  that 
prisoners  now  sometimes  receive.  Many  of  our 
prisons  are  scandalously  unhygienic ;  the  wardens  are 
often  men  without  special  training  for  their  office, 
if,  indeed,  they  are  not  coarse  and  of  a  lower  moral 
grade  than  some  of  their  charges.  Little  is  done  usu- 
ally to  train  the  unskilled  prisoners  in  any  vocation ; 
in  many  cases  they  are  even  required  to  pass  their 
days  in  idleness.  Often  young  offenders  are  allowed 
to  associate  freely  with  men  who  are  hardened  and 
who  take  pleasure  in  teaching  them  criminal  ways. 
Little  is  done,  if  anything,  to  remedy  the  defect  of 
character  which  caused  their  fall.  They  are  kept 
under  restraint  for  a  period  of  unhappiness  and 
brooding,  and  then  turned  loose  upon  society  again. 

There  is  no  need  to  labor  the  point  that  we  are  not 
fair  to  our  criminals.  Many  of  them  have  never  had 
a  fair  chance  to  become  reputable  citizens;  many 
others  who  have  abused  their  opportunities  could 
also,  by  proper  training  and  environment,  be  made 


80  EQUALITY 

over  into  men  of  use  to  society.  Some  will,  no  doubt, 
prove  hopeless.  But  a  more  discriminating  treatment 
would  salvage  most  of  the  human  wreckage  that  now 
disgraces  our  civilization. 

As  a  scientific  penology  proved  the  possibility  of 
restoring  most  offenders  to  normal  citizenship,  the 
people  at  large  would  become  less  wary  of  accepting 
the  services  of  those  who  had  served  prison  terms, 
and  there  would  be  a  mitigation,  at  least,  of  that  cruel 
suspiciousness  which  makes  it  all  but  impossible  now 
for  a  man  who  has  once  fallen  to  regain  the  respect 
of  his  fellows  and  build  for  himself  again  a  respect- 
able life.  Another  chance  for  everybody,  should  >>e 
our  demand.  If  our  prisons  were  all  scientifically 
managed  our  faith  in  their  efficiency  as  reform- 
schools  would  be  justified,  and  the  professionally 
criminal  class  would  lose  the  many  recruits  that  join 
it  out  of  desperation  at  the  attitude  toward  them  of 
society. 

Human  life  can  never  be  made  to  offer  equal  oppor- 
tunities to  all.  We  shall  be  to  the  end  different  in 
brains,  in  good  looks,  in  health,  in  a  thousand  things 
that  cpjafrTbute  to  the  determination  of  our  conduct. 
ButMr  we  sincerely  cherish  our  ideal  of  Justice  to 
all,  we  must  realize  that  far  more  is  necessary  for  its 
attainment  than  the  judicial  and  penal  systems  that 
we  as  yet  possess. 

SUGGESTED  READINGS 

Frank  Parsons,  Legal  Doctrine  and  Social  Progress,  Chap.  VIII. 

R.  B.  Fosdick,  American  Police  Systems. 

R.  H.  Smith,  Justice  and  the  Poor. 

G.  G.  Groat,  The  Attitude  of  American  Courts  in  Labor  Cases. 

E.  P.  Edie,  Current  Social  and  Industrial  Forces,  pp.  223-229. 

C.  E.  Merriam,  American  Political  Ideas,  Chap.  V. 

P.  A.  Parsons,  Responsibility  for  Crime. 


JUSTICE  FOR  ALL  81 

A.  H.  Currier,  The  Present  Day  Problem,  of  Crime. 

R.  M.  McConnell,  Criminal  Responsibility  and  Social  Con- 
straint. 

T.  S.  Mosby,  Crime  and  its  Causes  and  Cures. 

F.  Tannenbaum,  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  125,  p.  433. 

H.  A.  Overstreet,  in  International  Journal  of  Ethics,  vol.  25, 
p.  277. 


CHAPTER  IX 

RACIAL   EQUALITY 

THE  toleration  of  negro  slavery  was,  of  course,  the 
great  crime,  the  great  inconsistency,  in  a  nation 
founded  upon  the  principle  that  "all  men  are  created 
equal."  That  crime  was  atoned  for  by  the  blood  and 
tears  of  the  Civil  War,  and  ended  by  the  Fourteenth 
and  Fifteenth  Amendments  to  the  Constitution. 
Now  Lincoln,  the  Emancipator,  is  known  and  rever- 
enced by  the  poorest  child  who  earns  or  is  given  a 
copper  cent. 

Scarcely  less  serious  a  stain  upon  our  record  has 
been  our  treatment  of  the  natives  of  our  land,  the 
American  Indians.  They  were  subjugated  with  com- 
parative ease  by  the  superior  numbers  and  weapons 
of  the  European  settlers,  and  thereupon  denied  citi- 
zenship, banished  to  the  far  West,  cooped  up  upon 
Reserves,  and  treated  in  a  way  that  justifies  the  title 
of  a  recent  volume,  A  Century  of  Dishonor.  A  com- 
mission appointed  by  President  Grant  to  report  upon 
Indian  affairs  published  this  conclusion :  "The  his- 
tory of  the  Government  connection  with  the  Indians 
is  a  shameful  record  of  broken  treaties  and  unfulfilled 
promises.  The  history  of  the  border  white  man's  con- 
nection with  the  Indians  is  a  sickening  record  of 
murder,  outrage,  robbery  and  wrongs  committed  by 
the  former,  as  the  rule,  and  occasional  outbreaks  and 
unspeakably  barbarous  deeds  of  retaliation  by  the 
latter,  as  the  exception." 

82 


EACIAL  EQUALITY  83 

The  nation  has  now  generally  recognized  the  wrong 
that  was  done  the  negro  and  the  Indian.  What  re- 
mains of  the  latter  race  seems  in  a  fair  way  to  be 
absorbed  into  the  common  American  stock.  But  the 
negro  race  remains  a  sharply  distinct  race,  whose 
intermarriage  is  not  usually  regarded  as  desirable. 
Human  nature  being  what  it  is,  a  certain  racial  an- 
tipathy seems  unconquerable;  and  the  presence  of 
eleven  millions  of  negroes  in  this  country  gives  rise 
to  a  very  serious  problem. 

It  is  not  that  the  negroes  are  an  "inferior"  race. 
Modern  biology  has  been  undermining  that  compla- 
cent assumption  of  innate  superiority  which  the  white 
man  has  until  recently  taken  for  granted.  Kecent 
investigations  seem  to  indicate  that  there  is  no  very- 
great  difference  in  average  mental  ability  between  the 
members  of  the  white,  red,  yellow,  brown  and  black 
races.  It  may  be — though  it  has  not  yet  been  deci- 
sively proved — that  the  average  of  negro  capacity  is 
somewhat  below  the  average  capacity  of  the  white 
race.  But  in  any  case,  the  range  of  capacity  within 
each  race  is  so  great  as  compared  with  any  average 
difference  that  there  may  be  between  the  races,  that 
no  difference  in  attitude  toward  any  race  as  a  whole 
is  justified  because  of  different  mental  capacity. 

It  would  seem,  if  these  biological  investigations  are 
trustworthy,  that  the  apparent  lower  capacity  of  the 
negroes,  as  of  every  backward  race,  is  to  be  explained 
mainly,  if  not  altogether,  by  the  absence  of  an 
environment  favorable  for  development.  Give  the 
negroes  equal  educational  and  cultural  advantages, 
and  in  a  generation  there  will  be  no  more  problem  of 
a  backward  race  there  than  there  is  with  the 
Japanese,  who,  in  a  generation,  have  leaped  from  a 
semi-civilized  status  to  be  one  of  the  world's  great 


84  EQUALITY 

Powers.  The  poetry  of  Paul  Lawrence  Dunbar,  the 
great  educational  achievement  of  Booker  Washington 
— possibly  the  greatest  educational  achievement  of 
the  past  generation,  the  undisputed  genius  of  many 
negroes  in  this  and  other  countries,  reveals  the  poten- 
tialities in  a  hitherto  cramped  and  suppressed  race. 
The  problem  of  the  negro  is  not  so  much  the  problem 
of  the  negro  as  the  problem  of  the  white  man  who  does 
not  want  to  extend  to  him  equal  advantages. 

It  is  easy,  of  course,  for  a  Northerner,  who  sees  few 
negroes,  to  preach  equality  of  treatment.  It  is  quite 
another  matter  for  a  Southerner  who  lives  in  a  region 
where,  perhaps,  the  blacks  outnumber  the  whites,  to 
practice  such  equality.  But  it  should  be  unnecessary 
to  insist  that  the  denial  of  equal  rights  and  privileges 
to  any  race  is  fundamentally  un-American.  The 
negro  in  many  parts  of  the  country  does  not  get  equal 
justice.  He  is  brutally  treated  by  the  police.  If  there 
is  a  quarrel  between  whites  and  blacks,  it  is  usually 
the  blacks  that  are  arrested.  In  the  recent  Chicago 
race-riots — which  started  with  the  shameless  murder 
of  an  innocent  colored  boy — twenty-three  colored  and 
fifteen  white  people  were  killed;  but  the  arrests  and 
indictments  of  negroes  were  five  times  as  numerous 
as  those  of  whites.  The  lynchings  that  disgrace  our 
land  have  usually  negroes  for  the  victims,  although 
the  statistics  show  that  the  negroes  are  a  compara- 
tively law-abiding  race.  More  cases  of  rape  are  re- 
corded annually  as  committed  by  white  men*  in  a 
single  Northern  city  than  by  all  the  negroes  in  the 
South. 

Apart  from  this  flagrant  injustice,  the  petty  indig- 
nities to  which  the  negro  population  is  subject  in 
many  parts  of  the  South  show  how  undeveloped  the 
sense  of  human  equality  still  remains.  The  nasty 


KACIAL  EQUALITY  85 

waiting-rooms  and  railway  cars  which  negroes  must 
use,  the  discourtesies  of  conductors  and  ticket-agents 
and  hotel  men,  make  travelling  for  the  refined  negro 
extremely  disagreeable.  Employers  cheat  their  negro 
helpers,  storekeepers  insult  them,  politicians  indulge 
in  coarse  jests  and  vituperation  at  their  expense,  a 
venal  press  fans  the  flame  of  race  prejudice  by  mis- 
representing facts  and  exploiting  whatever  cases  of 
negro  criminality  come  to  hand.  There  is  a  wide- 
spread effort  to  keep  the  negro  in  a  position  of 
inferiority;  and  to  justify  this  injustice,  there  is  a 
continual  stream  of  abuse  poured  upon  him,  to  prove 
that  the  discrimination  is  deserved. 

Most  serious  of  all  is  the  denial  of  educational 
privileges.  The  recent  constitutional  amendments  in 
most  of  the  Southern  States  withhold  the  ballot  from 
the  illiterate  blacks;  and  there  is  therefore  a  wide- 
spread desire  to  keep  them  illiterate  in  order  to  pre- 
sent their  obtaining  political  power.  No  Southern 
state  permits  white  and  negro  children  to  attend  the 
same  public  schools;  four  states  prohibit  even  mixed 
private  schools  and  colleges.  One  state  goes  so  far 
as  to  forbid  whites  from  teaching  negroes !  In  many 
parts  of  the  South  the  sums  available  for  negro  educa- 
tion are  shamelessly  small — far  less  than  the  sums 
available  for  white  children,  though  the  negro  chil- 
dren may  outnumber  the  whites.  Figures  available 
some  years  ago  showed  that  although  the  negroes  con- 
stitute eleven  per  cent  of  our  population,  they  get  the 
benefit  of  but  two  per  cent  of  the  school  funds  of  the 
country.  As  a  result,  ignorance  still prevailsamongthe 
negroes ;  and  it  is  no  wonder  if  poverty,  crime  and  vice, 
the  concomitants  of  ignorance,  too  largely  prevail. 

Thus,  instead  of  solving  the  problem  by  helping  the 
negro  to  rise  to  a  higher  level,  many  of  their  white 


86  EQUALITY 

neighbors  are  doing  their  best  to  keep  the  negroes 
down,  retarding  the  only  possible  solution.  What 
with  the  educational  disqualification,  from  which 
most  of  the  illiterate  whites  are  exempt,  and  the  poll- 
tax  laws,  and  the  pressure  of  white  disapproval  of 
negro  participation  in  politics,  the  negroes  are  not  in 
a  position  to  relieve  their  own  situation  at  the  ballot- 
box.  It  is  necessary  to  awaken  the  conscience  of 
their  white  compatriots  to  the  true  implications  of 
Americanism. 

The  act  of  freeing  and  giving  the  franchise  to  the 
negroes  was,  as  Professor  Hartley  Alexander  has  said, 
"the  most  heroic  act  of  political  faith  in  history." 
They  have  not  had  a  fair  chance  to  justify  that  faith. 
But  some  of  their  leaders  are  making  heroic  efforts 
to  uplift  their  people.  The  return  of  negro  soldiers 
from  participation  in  the  War,  with  its  broadening 
outlook,  the  growing  appreciation  of  the  economic 
value  of  the  negro  in  a  time  when  farm-labor  is 
increasingly  scarce,  the  work  of  the  few  endowed 
negro  schools,  and  of  such  bodies  as  the  National 
Association  for  the  Advancement  of  Colored  People, 
offer  hope  for  the  alleviation  of  an  intolerable  situa- 
tion. At  any  rate,  the  negroes  are  not  dying  out,  not 
emigrating,  not  being  blended  with  the  rest  of  the 
population.  Their  degradation  involves  the  degrada- 
tion, in  some  degree,  of  their  white  neighbors;  as 
Booker  Washington  used  to  say,  "You  can't  keep  a 
man  in  the  ditch  without  staying  in  the  ditch  with 
him."  The  only  possible  solution  of  the  negro  prob- 
lem lies  in  a  frank  recognition  of  the  American  prin- 
ciple of  equality.  This  does  not  imply  intermarriage 
or  unnecessary  social  contact.  It  does  imply  equal 
rights — to  education,  to  the  ballot,  to  all  the  privi- 


RACIAL  EQUALITY  87 

leges  available  to  the  white  population.    America  is 
theirs  as  well  as  ours. 

The  crux  of  the  negro  problem  lies  in  the  fact  that, 
on  the  one  hand,  we  do  not  want  to  assimilate  them 
biologically,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  presence  of 
an  unassimilated  race  so  different  from  our  own 
creates  an  unhappy  social  situation.  The  situation 
seems  permanently  unsatisfactory,  with  no  way  out. 
We  can,  and  must,  insist  on  fair  treatment  for  the 
negroes ;  we  must  respect  them  and  cease  to  look  upon 
them  as  inferiors.  But  we  should  learn  the  lesson  of 
our  fathers'  blunder  in  bringing  them  to  our  shores, 
and  make  sure  that  another  such  situation  does  not 
arise. 

Yet  just  such  another  situation  might  arise  if  the 
Chinese  or  Japanese  or  Hindus  were  to  be  allowed  to 
enter  our  country  in  any  considerable  numbers.  It  is 
not,  again,  that  these  are  inferior  races.  The  Chinese 
and  Hindus  were  civilized  while  our  Caucasian  an- 
cestors were  still  savages;  and  the  Japanese  have 
already  shown  a  capacity  for  modern  methods  that 
everyone  admires.  It  is  likely  that  within  a  compara- 
tively short  time,  as  history  goes,  these  nations  will 
all  be  as  civilized  as  our  own. 

But  do  we  want  to  intermarry  with  these  races? 
Are  we  sure  that  it  would  be  wise?  Certainly  most 
of  our  people  would  vigorously  repudiate  the  idea; 
and  these  Orientals  would  form  a  separate  race  in  our 
midst,  not  so  ignorant,  and — let  us  hope — not  so  ill- 
treated  as  the  negroes  have  been,  but  still  aliens, 
separate,  and  made  to  feel  their  separateness.  «• 
Candidly,  we  cannot  count  on  our  courtesy  to  such 
an  alien  race  living  in  our  midst.  Kace-prejudice 
rests  on  deep-seated  human  instincts,  and  it  is 


88  EQUALITY 

Utopian  to  expect  it  to  disappear.  It  is  far  wiser  to 
avoid  situations  that  inflame  it.  We  can  respect  and 
admire  the  Orientals  in  their  own  homes;  we  can 
gladly  learn  from  them  and  have  a  happy  interchange 
of  students  and  scholars,  travellers  and  technicians. 
But  occasions  for  friction  and  race-wars  will  be  best 
averted  by  restrictions  which  will,  in  general,  keep 
each  race  to  its  own  continent. 

The  policy  of  Oriental  exclusion,  then,  does  not, 
or  should  not,  rest  on  any  denial  of  the  doctrine  of 
human  equality.  It  rests  on  the  obvious  fact  that  the 
hybridizing  of  races,  once  done,  can  never  be  undone. 
And  the  complementary  fact  that  another  unassimi- 
lated  race  in  America  would  be  a  constant  source  of 
friction  and  a  danger  to  democracy.  These  sources  of 
friction  we  must  be  wise  enough  to  avoid,  whenever 
possible. 

"With  the  two  races  physically  on  different  sides  of 
the  ocean,  we  can  develop  our  common  national  and 
international  interests.  But  with  any  considerable 
immigration  to  this  side,  causes  of  friction  would 
inevitably  develop.  They  might  be  our  fault,  but  we 
could  not  prevent  them.  Our  people  have  learned 
their  racial  lessons  in  a  dangerous  school.  .  .  .  We 
have  dealt  unjustly  with  the  Negro  and  he  submits. 
We  have  dealt  unjustly  with  the  Indian  and  he  is 
dead.  If  we  have  many  Japanese,  we  shall  not  know 
how  to  deal  otherwise  than  unjustly  with  them,  and 
very  properly  they  will  not  submit.  The  only  real 
safety  is  in  separation." 

With  the  various  Caucasian  races  ("white  men") 
the  situation  we  have  discussed  will  not  arise,  or,  at 
least,  be  permanent ;  for  they  are  all  assimilable,  and 
rapidly  being  assimilated  into  the  American  stock. 
But  the  question  may  still  be  raised  whether  for  other 


EACIAL  EQUALITY  89 

reasons  some  further  restriction  of  immigration  is 
not  desirable. 

There  seems  to  be  no  abstract  right  of  the  inhab- 
itants of  one  country  to  emigrate  to  another.  If  for 
any  reason  it  seems  best  for  the  general  welfare,  our 
people  may  properly  reserve  to  themselves  the  right 
to  say  who  shall  come  and  who  shall  not  come  to  live 
here.  But  there  is  much  to  be  said  for  the  policy  of  a 
comparatively  unrestricted  immigration.  It  is  diffi- 
cult to  devise  laws  that  will  shut  out  the  less  desirable 
and  admit  the  more  desirable  immigrants — except  for 
the  exclusion  of  people  of  obviously  sub-normal 
mentality  and  those  suffering  from  contagious  or 
inheritable  diseases,  or  likely  to  become  a  public 
charge,  or  likely  to  indulge  in  crime  or  flagrant  vice. 
The  illiteracy  test  now  in  force  keeps  out  a  good  many 
who  have  had  no  educational  opportunities,  but  is  no 
fair  test  of  mental  capacity  or  race-value. 

It  is  doubtful  if,  as  is  so  often  assumed,  the  people 
from  southern  and  eastern  Europe  are  really  inferior 
on  the  average  in  their  potentialities  to  the  immi- 
grants from  northern  and  western  Europe.  It  is 
certainly  true  that  they  have  ideals  and  ideas  to 
bring  us,  as  well  as  muscle.  The  cessation  of  immi- 
gration during  the  war  brought  about  a  shortage  of 
unskilled  labor  particularly  irksome  to  the  owners 
of  factories  and  mines,  but  of  moment  to  us  all.  Why 
not  welcome  their  brains  and  brawn,  rejoice  in  the 
bettering  of  their  condition  over  here,  in  the  relief 
to  overcrowded  districts  of  Europe,  and  in  the  return 
flux  of  ideals  and  ideas  to  the  lands  from  which  they 
came  and  with  which  they  usually  remain  in  touch? 

In  answer,  we  may  say  that  while  there  is  any 
doubt  as  to  the  average  mental  capacity  of  a  given 
race,  we  may  well  hesitate  to  admit  great  numbers  of 


90  EQUALITY 

that  race  into  the  melting  pot  out  of  which  is  to  come 
the  American  stock  of  the  future.  More  clearly,  the 
admission  of  great  numbers  of  ignorant  and  un- 
trained foreigners  makes  it  very  hard  to  raise  the 
standard  of  living  not  only  of  their  own  families  but 
of  the  American  laborers  with  whom  they  compete. 
Many  of  these  immigrants  are  willing  to  work  for 
low  wages,  because  they  were  used,  in  the  Old  World, 
to  poor  living  conditions.  It  is  difficult  to  organize 
men  of  many  different  races  into  unions  which  can 
demand  a  living  wage  and  proper  working  conditions. 
The  presence  of  multitudes  of  these  servile  laborers  is 
welcome  to  the  owners  of  some  of  our  factories  and 
mines,  but  is  undesirable  from  the  public  point  of 
view. 

Apart  from  this  economic  situation  and  a  possible 
eugenic  disadvantage  in  certain  racial  mixtures,  the 
immigrant-problem  is,  as  we  said  of  the  negro- 
problem,  not  so  much  their  problem  as  ours.  It  is 
the  problem  of  treating  the  immigrants  fairly,  pro- 
tecting them  from  exploitation,  giving  them  decent 
housing  conditions,  facilities  for  education,  and  in- 
fluences that  make  for  moral  upbuilding  rather  than 
for  demoralization.  It  is,  unhappily,  by  no  means 
always  true  that  the  influence  of  America  upon  immi- 
grants is  wholesome.  Many  of  them  degenerate 
morally  here.  The  children  of  immigrants  form,  more 
than  any  other  class,  the  supply  for  our  criminals  and 
prostitutes.  The  traditions  of  the  immigrants  them- 
selves persist  sufficiently  to  keep  them  "straight,"  for 
the  most  part.  But  we  do  not  take  enough  pains  to 
see  to  it  that  their  children  have  American  ideals  to 
take  their  place. 

The  two  traditional  American  attitudes  toward  the 


EACIAL  EQUALITY  91 

immigrant    may    be   illustrated    by    the    following 
stanzas,  by  Bryant  and  Aldrich  respectively : 

"There's  freedom  at  thy  gates  and  rest 
For  earth's  down-trodden  and  opprest, 
A  shelter  for  the  hunted  head, 
For  the  starved  laborer  toil  and  bread." 

"O  Liberty,  white  Goddess !  is  it  well 
To  leave  the  gates  unguarded?    On  thy  breast 
Fold  Sorrow's  children,  soothe  the  hurts  of  fate, 
Lift  the  down-trodden,  but  with  hands  of  steel 
Stay  those  who  to  thy  sacred  portals  come 
To  waste  the  gifts  of  freedom." 

Neither  of  these  attitudes,  however,  is  very  largely 
pertinent  to  our  present  problem.  The  European 
countries  are  now,  for  the  most  part,  as  democratic 
as  ours ;  there  is  little  oppression  from  which  we  need 
to  succor  them.  There  is  poverty,  partly  the  result 
of  ignorance,  largely  now  the  result  of  the  War.  But 
there  is  much  work  to  be  done  over  there,  hands  are 
needed;  to  bring  millions  of  the  ablest-bodied  over 
here  is  to  rob  Europe  of  the  strength  that  she  needs 
just  now  more  than  we. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  are  few  who  come  to  these 
shores  with  any  destructive  or  anti-social  intent. 
Almost  all  of  our  immigrants  come  eagerly,  ready  to 
love  and  serve  America,  happy  at  the  prospect  of 
being  Americans.  All  they  need  is  the  right  treat- 
ment to  make  them  patriotic  and  useful  citizens.  If 
other  results  accrue  it  is  more  apt  to  be  our  fault 
than  theirs. 

The  plan  of  restricting  the  number  of  immigrants 
to  be  admitted  from  any  race  or  people  annually  to  a 
small  percentage  of  the  people  of  that  race  already 
here,  is  an  excellent  plan.  It  rests  on  the  sound  ob- 


92  EQUALITY 

serration  that  immigrants  are  for  the  most  part 
received  into  an  environment  of  their  own  former 
compatriots.  Too  many  newcomers  cannot  be  assimi- 
lated; they  remain  foreigners  in  our  midst  and  pro- 
duce, temporarily,  the  sort  of  undesirable  social 
situation  that  the  presence  of  unassimilable  races 
permanently  produces.  Moreover,  this  plan,  with- 
out discriminating  against  any  particular  race,  and 
so  offending  national  susceptibilities,  automatically 
checks  the  immigration  from  those  peoples  that  are 
most  alien  to  our  existing  American  stock. 

But  in  addition  to  our  immigration  laws,  we  must 
cultivate  the  temper  of  fair-mindedness  and  hospi- 
tality toward  newcomers.  Aliens  in  our  land  should 
be  regarded  as  guests  of  the  nation,  and  should  be 
treated  as  courteously  as  we  wish  our  own  compatriots 
to  be  treated  when  they  reside  abroad.  Nothing  is 
more  offensively  un-American  than  the  epithets  such 
as  "dago,"  "sheeny,"  and  the  like  that  are  so  com- 
monly applied  to  these  foreigners.  To  any  who  still 
have  a  contemptuous  attitude  such  as  is  expressed  by 
these  words  we  should  recommend  the  reading  of 
Robert  Haven  Schauffler's  noble  poem,  entitled  Scum 
o'  the  Earth.  Or  the  words  which  a  school-principal 
used  in  rebuking  some  pupils  for  discourtesy  to  for- 
eigners :  "I  want  you  boys  and  girls,  especially  those 
that  go  to  the  Catholic  Church,  always  to  remember 
that  the  Pope  is  a  dago ;  and  you  who  don't  go  to  the 
Catholic  Church  might  bear  in  mind  that  America 
was  discovered  by  a  dago.  And  I  don't  want  any  one 
of  you  to  forget  that  Jesus  himself  was  a  sheeny." 

An  Irish  believer  in  Equality  used  to  say,  "One  man 
is  as  good  as  another — if  not  better!"  The  true 
American  spirit  is  to  say  that  these  immigrants  who 
come  to  us  to  live  with  us,  work  for  us,  share  our 


KACIAL  EQUALITY  93 

common  life,  are  as  good  as  we — if  not  better. 
America  has  been  made  by  such  as  they — men  who 
were  poor,  ignorant,  hard-working,  but  full  of  energy 
and  hope.  Our  fathers  were  probably  such  as  they — 
of  another  race  and  speech,  perhaps,  with  other  ideas 
and  traditions  behind  them,  but  essentially  the  same 
in  their  belief  in  progress  and  democracy,  in  liberty 
and  equality  for  all.  The  glory  and  hope  of  America 
lies  in  the  fusion  of  races  here  going  on;  from  that 
blending  of  types,  if  accelerated  by  mutual  kindness 
and  forbearance  and  understanding,  there  may 
spring  a  race,  the  American  race  of  the  future,  with 
a  destiny  beyond  that  of  any  race  the  world  has 
yet  known. 

SUGGESTED  READINGS 

Booker  Washington,  Up  from  Slavery. 

W.  E.  B.  Du  Bois,  Darkwater;  The  Souls  of  Black  Folk. 

P.  L.  Ha  worth,  America  in  Ferment,  Chap.  V. 

J.  M.  Mecklin,  Democracy  and  Race  Friction. 

H.  J.  Seligmann,  The  Negro  Faces  America. 

Stephen  Graham,  The  Soul  of  John  Brown. 

H.  M.  F.  H.  Jackson,  A  Century  of  Dishonor. 

Frances  Kellor,  Immigration  and  the  Future. 

H.  G.  Wells,  The  Future  in  America,  Chap.  IX. 

Mary  Antin,  They  Who  Knock  at  Our  Gates. 

T.  S.  Adams  and  H.  L.  Sumner,  Labor  Problems,  Chap.  III. 

Jenks  and  Lauck,  The  Immigration  Problem. 

H.  P.  Fairchild,  Immigration. 

E.  A.   Steiner,   The  Immigrant   Tide;   On  the   Trail  of  the 

Immigrant. 

F.  J.  Warne,  The  Immigrant  Invasion. 

C.  S.  Cooper,  American  Ideals,  Chap.  VIII. 

D.  S.  Lescohier,  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  123,  p.  483. 

W.  E.  Weyl,  in  Harper's  Magazine,  vol.  129,  p.  615.    (Reprinted, 
abridged,  in  Fulton,  op.  cit.,  p.  47.) 


CHAPTEK  X 

EDUCATION   FOR   ATT. 

OF  all  the  aspects  of  equality  in  America  there  is 
none  in  which  we  have  taken  more  pride  than  in  our 
universal. free  education.  Our  educational  system  is 
crude  as  yet,  and  only  in  the  making.  But  America 
has  always  believed  passionately  in  education.  Our 
rich  men  have  vied  with  one  another  in  founding 
colleges  and  universities,  poor  men  have  sacrificed 
much  that  their  children  might  have  schooling. 
Nearly  a  century  ago  Cobden  wrote,  "The  univer- 
sality of  education  in  the  United  States  is  probably 
more  calculated  than  all  other  things  to  accelerate 
their  progress  towards  a  superior  rank  of  civilization 
and  power." 

It  has  been  said  that  the  typical  American  phrase 
is,  "I  want  to  know!"  Certainly  the  typical  Ameri- 
can does  want  to  know,  believes,  indeed,  in  what  a 
recent  essayist  has  called  "the  moral  obligation  to  be 
intelligent."  He  believes  in  the  educability  of  com- 
mon men,  and  in  the  importance  for  the  common 
welfare  that  the  common  man  be  educated.  Washing- 
ton, in  his  Farewell  Address,  bade  his  countrymen 
promote,  "as  an  object  of  primary  importance,  in- 
stitutions for  the  general  diffusion  of  knowledge.  In 
proportion  as  the  structure  of  a  government  gives 
force  to  public  opinion,  it  is  essential  that  public 
opinion  should  be  enlightened." 

94 


EDUCATION  FOE  ALL  95 

It  is,  indeed,  true  that  the  mistakes  of  democracy 
have  always  been  due,  essentially,  to  the  ignorance  of 
the  people,  the  lack  of  a  widespread  enlightenment  on 
political  and  social  matters.  The  one  source  of  fear 
for  the  Republic  is  the  apprehension  lest  our  people 
are  not  intelligent  and  well-informed  enough  to  meet 
successfully  the  exigencies  that  may  arise.  The  an- 
swer of  America  to  these  fears  must  be,  "we  will  make 
the  people  intelligent  and  well-informed."  The  motto 
graven  on  the  exterior  of  the  Boston  Public  Library 
should  be  stamped  upon  our  hearts:  "The  Common- 
wealth requires  the  education  of  the  people  as  the 
safeguard  of  order  and  liberty." 

In  purely  financial  terms,  education  pays.  The 
boy  who  stays  in  school  until  he  is  eighteen  has  re- 
ceived, on  the  average,  by  the  time  he  is  twenty-five, 
two  thousand  dollars  more  than  the  boy  who  left 
school  at  fourteen,  and  is  earning  at  twenty-five, 
nearly  a  thousand  dollars  a  year  more.  From  this  age 
onward  his  salary  is  likely  to  rise  still  more  rapidly, 
while  that  of  the  boy  who  left  school  at  fourteen  is 
likely  to  rise  but  little. 

A  similar  ratio  holds  between  community-earnings 
and  the  general  education.  Where  education  is 
longest  and  most  widespread,  there  is  industrial 
efficiency  and  national  wealth.  The  backwardness  of 
Russia,  of  Turkey,  of  Mexico  is  fundamentally  due  to 
lack  of  education.  In  our  own  country  the  produc- 
tivity and  wealth  of  our  several  States  is  in  a  pretty 
constant  ratio  to  the  amount  of  schooling  of  their 
inhabitants.  For  example,  the  average  schooling 
given,  some  years  ago,  in  Massachusetts  was  about 
seven  years,  and  the  average  daily  productiveness  of 
the  citizens  of  that  State  was  eighty-five  cents.  For 
Tennessee  in  the  same  year  the  average  schooling  was 


96  EQUALITY 

about  three  years  and  the  average  daily  productive- 
ness thirty-eight  cents. 

There  is  a  certain  tendency  among  our  "self-made" 
men  and  their  admirers  to  belittle  the  value  of 
schooling.  And  we  must  admit  that  a  boy  of  excep- 
tional force  has  often,  when  favored  by  opportunity, 
made  his  way  to  wealth  and  eminence  without  the 
advantages  of  formal  education.  This  was  oftener 
possible,  however,  in  the  frontier  and  formative  con- 
ditions of  American  life  than  it  is  now.  More  and 
more  the  successful  man  must  be  an  expert,  must 
depend  upon  exact  knowledge  rather  than  solely  upon 
personal  force  and  cleverness.  A  study  of  Who's 
Who  in  America,  reveals  the  fact  that  "out  of  the 
nearly  5,000,000  uneducated  men  and  women  in 
America,  only  31  have  been  sufficiently  successful  in 
any  kind  of  work  to  obtain  a  place  among  the  8,000 
leaders  catalogued  in  this  book.  Out  of  33,000,000 
people  with  as  much  as  a  common-school  education, 
808  were  able  to  win  a  place  in  the  list,  while  out  of 
only  2,000,000  with  high-school  training,  1,245  have 
manifested  this  marked  efficiency,  and  out  of  1,000,- 
000  with  college  or  university  training,  5,768  have 
merited  this  distinction."  That  is  to  say,  a  man  with 
college  education  is  eight  hundred  times  as  likely 
to  become  a  notable  factor  in  his  country's  life  as  an 
unschooled  man. 

We  have  spoken  only  of  the  more  conspicuous  fruits 
of  education.  They  are  such  as  to  justify  the  words 
of  Chancellor  Kent :  •  "A  parent  who  sends  his  son 
into  the  world  uneducated  and  without  skill  in  any 
art  or  science  does  a  great  injury  to  mankind  as  well 
as  to  his  own  family ;  for  he  defrauds  the  community 
of  a  useful  citizen  and  bequeaths  to  it  a  nuisance." 
Far  the  greater  number  of  our  paupers  and  prosti- 


DUCATION  FOR  ALL  97 


tutes  and  criminals  come  from  the  ranks  of  the  un- 
educated. Victor  Hugo  once  said  that  every  school 
that  is  opened  causes  a  prison  to  be  closed.  A  Sing 
Sing  prisoner  recently  declared,  "Most  of  the  in- 
mates of  the  prisons  are  there  because  they  could  not 
compete  successfully  with  others.  They  did  not  know 
how  to  meet  the  conditions  of  free  life." 

But  in  addition  to  these  social  aspects  of  educa- 
tion, its  value  in  enhancing  the  personal  life  should 
not  be  forgotten.  Education  gives  interests,  adds  to 
our  resources,  helps  us  to  an  innocent  and  profitable 
use  of  our  leisure.  Nothing  is  more  pathetic  than 
the  waste  of  leisure  hours  on  the  part  of  men  and 
women  who  have  never  cultivated  a  taste  for  read- 
ing, for  art  or  music,  or  any  of  the  higher  activities 
of  the  mind.  "The  educated  man  is  one  whose  life 
is  characterized  by  increasing  richness,  safety,  and 
control."  He  is  "at  home  in  the  world,  has  at  least 
a  part  of  it  under  his  intelligent  control,  and  has 
opened  up  to  him  new  avenues  of  intellectual  and 
emotional  enjoyment." 

The  educated  man  is  an  intelligent  consumer.  He 
is  not  the  dupe  of  unscrupulous  advertisers  and  deal- 
ers; he  knows  what  is  good  from  what  is  shoddy  or 
inferior.  He  is  safe  from  the  wiles  of  quacks  and 
charlatans — notoriously  numerous  in  America.  He  is 
relatively  free  from  superstition  and  prejudice.  His 
life  has  range  and  variety  and  dignity. 

It  is  important  to  emphasize  this  enrichment  and 
safeguarding  of  the  personal  life  that  results  from  a 
liberal  education,  because  there  is  a  strain  in  Ameri- 
can thought  and  character  that  looks  upon  "culture" 
as  impractical  and  useless.  We  are,  in  general,  of  the 
"motor  type" ;  our  men  are  happiest  "in  the  harness", 
and  are  apt  to  be  lost  and  resourceless  when  on  a  va- 


98  EQUALITY 

cation.  A  contemporary  French  critic  finds  that 
"the  American  concerns  himself  but  little  with  cul- 
ture, considering  it  a  luxury  good  for  a  few  dilettanti, 
but  which  does  not  'pay',  and  which,  as  such,  appears 
somewhat  suspicious  to  the  practical  Yankee  mind." 
A  recent  American  writer  expresses  it  thus:  "We 
have  few  or  no  social  habits  that  encourage  the  life 
of  reflection.  The  average  American,  especially  in 
the  great  industrial  centers,  is  catapulted  from  the 
cradle  to  the  grave  in  the  mad  hurly-burly  of  a  head- 
long civilization  that  never  pauses  to  get  its  bearings 
or  to  ask  the  meaning  of  life." 

But  even  vocational  education  has  been  neglected 
here,  as  compared  with  the  extent  to  which  it  has  been 
developed  in  several  European  countries.  Munich, 
a  city  of  500,000  inhabitants,  had,  in  1912,  fifty-two 
vocational  schools,  with  nearly  17,000  pupils.  Berlin 
had  40,000  students  in  trade  and  commerical  schools. 
The  small  state  of  Saxony  had  115  technical  insti- 
tutes. France,  Denmark,  Norway,  Great  Britain,  and 
other  countries,  have  established  systems  of  industrial 
and  commercial  education  that  surpass,  in  per  capita 
extent  and  efficiency,  our  still  rudimentary  and  frag- 
mentary national  system.  A  commission  of  eminent 
German  scientists,  visiting  this  country  shortly  be- 
fore the  outbreak  of  the  Great  War,  reported  to  their 
government  that  they  need  have  no  fear  of  American 
competition  in  trade  and  manufacture,  that  we  were 
complacently  relying  upon  our  unexhausted  natural 
resources  and  neglecting  to  train  our  youth  in  indus- 
trial and  commercial  efficiency.  The  fact  that  the 
German  technique  was  misused,  at  the  beck  of  a 
selfish  military  clique,  should  not  blind  us  to  the  ex- 
cellence of  the  technical  education  that  Germany 
had  established  for  her  citizens. 


EDUCATION  FOE  ALL  99 

Every  vocation  is  becoming  more  scientific.  The 
world  needs  its  work  well  done,  and  could  have  it 
far  better  done  than  it  ever  has.  Apprenticeship  and 
home-instruction  are  inadequate  for  the  new  era. 
Happily,  the  Federal  Government  is  awakening  to  the 
need,  and  is  now  encouraging  the  States  by  appropri- 
ating federal  funds  for  inaugurating  and  improv- 
ing vocational  education  in  the  public  schools.  There 
is  hope  that  we  may  yet  realize  our  traditional  aspira- 
tion toward  an  educational  system  that  shall  give 
to  every  boy  and  girl  in  the  land  access  to  the  world's 
store  of  experience,  and  a  training  that  will  make 
them  all  self-respecting  and  skilled  artisans — whether 
with  hand  or  brain — at  some  work  that  has  a  useful 
place  in  the  national  life. 

We  must  frankly  admit  that  we  have  yet  a  long 
way  to  go.  A  recent  government  bulletin  reveals  the 
fact  that  we  are  eighth  on  the  list  of  countries  ranked 
with  respect  to  the  proportion  of  literacy  among  their 
inhabitants.  Our  illiteracy  rate  is  close  to  7  per  cent 
for  people  over  ten  years  old.  The  rate  in  Switzer- 
land is  one  half  of  one  per  cent,  in  Germany  the  pre- 
war rate  was  three  o'ne-hundredths  of  one  per  cent. 
Of  the  young  men  of  draft  age  during  the  War,  some 
700,000  were  found  to  be  unable  to  read  and  write; 
our  total  adult  illiterate  population  is  about  ten 
times  that  number,  besides  many  more  millions  who 
can  barely  read  and  seldom  do.  Secretary  Lane  re- 
cently computed  that  this  illiteracy  means  an  annual 
economic  loss  to  the  country  of  |825,000,000. 

When  it  comes  to  higher  education  our  relative 
standing  is  equally  disappointing.  Some  years  ago, 
when  comparative  statistics  were  available,  there 
were,  for  each  ten  thousand  of  our  population,  twenty 
students  in  our  colleges  and  universities.  At  the  same 


100  EQUALITY 

time  there  were  fifty-six  students  per  ten  thousand  in- 
habitants in  British  colleges  and  universities,  sixty- 
five  in  Germany,  seventy-seven  in  Italy,  eighty-one 
in  France,  and  a  hundred  and  seventy-eight  in 
Switzerland. 

The  fact  is,  in  spite  of  much  recent  improvement  in 
our  educational  system,  we  are  not  spending  nearly 
enough  for  education.  The  rise  in  prices  during  the 
War  has  made  our  educational  expenditures  prac- 
tically far  less  than  a  few  years  ago.  Even  before 
the  War  we  were  spending  much  less  in  proportion  to 
the  national  wealth  than  in  earlier  days.  Everywhere 
people  grumble  about  high  taxes,  and  fail  to  realize 
that  education  is  the  best  possible  investment.  Nearly 
twice  as  much  money  is  spent  in  this  country  upon 
tobacco  as  upon  education ;  while  the  money  saved  by 
the  prohibition  of  alcoholic  beverages,  if  applied  to 
education,  would  treble  its  efficiency. 

It  is  a  well  known  fact  that  teachers  are  among  the 
poorest  paid  wage-earners  in  the  country ;  in  spite  of 
recent  salary-increases,  the  figures  for  the  average 
salaries  of  teachers  in  even  the  most  advanced  States 
are  too  low,  while  in  the  more  backward  States  they 
are  disgraceful.  There  is  no  work  more  important 
than  that  of  moulding  the  minds  of  the  young,  no 
career  that  calls  for  more  talent  or  more  careful 
preparation.  But  the  vocation  has  become  a  by-word, 
for  its  niggardly  rewards ;  able  young  men  and  women 
are  turning  from  it  in  disgust.  Unless  radical  im- 
provement is  made,  our  children  will  more  and  more 
be  taught  by  the  incompetent  and  the  ambitionless ; 
positions  will  have  to  be  increasingly  filled  by  those 
who  lack  the  proper  temperament  and  training.  And 
this  when  our  country  is  far  richer  than  ever  before — 
incomparably  the  richest  country  in  the  world ! 


EDUCATION  FOE  ALL  101 

Nothing  should  satisfy  us,  nothing  will  fulfill  the 
visions  of  the  founders  of  the  Kepublic,  short  of  the 
best  educational  system,  the  highest  educational  at- 
tendance, and  the  lowest  illiteracy  rate,  in  the  world. 
Indeed,  there  is  no  excuse  for  illiteracy  at  all;  it 
should  be  stamped  out  like  a  plague.  There  is  no  ex- 
cuse even  for  the  stopping  of  the  schooling  of  any 
boy  or  girl,  save  in  exceptional  cases,  short  of  high- 
school  graduation.  Nothing  less  than  that  is  conson- 
ant with  our  ideal  of  Equality  of  opportunity.  Yet 
as  things  are,  the  average  schooling  of  Americana 
lasts  but  a  little  over  six  years — and  the  school 
"years"  are  often  very  short.  The  average  schooling ! 
That  means,  since  so  many  go  on  through  the  eight 
years  of  the  elementary  school,  the  four  years  of  high 
school,  and  the  four  years  of  college,  that  very  many 
of  our  children  have  considerably  less  than  six  years' 
schooling.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  a  little  over  half  of  the 
children  who  enter  the  elementary  schools  reach  the 
fourth  grade;  something  over  a  quarter  reach  the 
eighth  grade;  about  an  eighth  get  to  high  school, 
and  less  than  a  twentieth  graduate  from  high  school. 
About  two  per  cent  go  to  some  college  or  higher  insti- 
tution of  learning,  and  only  a  fraction  of  those  gradu- 
ate therefrom. 

To  relieve  the  gloom  of  these  statistics  we  should 
add  that  there  are  many  hopeful  signs  on  the  educa- 
tional horizon.  The  number  of  pupils  in  high  schools 
is  increasing  far  faster  than  the  increase  in  the  popu- 
lation. And  most  of  our  colleges  and  universities  are 
badly  overcrowded.  The  national  Bureau  of  Educa- 
tion is  doing  a  great  deal  to  raise  standards  and  to 
encourage  the  extension  of  opportunities.  It  is 
earnestly  to  be  hoped  that  Congress  will  authorize 
bigger  and  bigger  appropriations  from  the  national 


102  EQUALITY 

treasury,  to  be  used  by  the  several  States  on  condition 
of  their  appropriating  equal  or  larger  amounts.  Our 
educational  system  is  very  decentralized,  as  com- 
pared with  some  European  systems;  and  our  plan, 
that  throws  the  burden  of  organization  and  finance 
upon  the  local  communities,  has  its  advantages.  But 
in  the  manner  above  indicated,  and  by  its  constant 
supervision  and  advice,  the  Federal  Government  can 
do  much  to  equalize  the  now  very  unequal  educational 
facilities  of  the  different  sections  of  the  country,  and 
to  raise  the  general  level  of  efficiency. 

Among  the  most  important  tendencies  is  the  move- 
ment which  is  opening  the  school-houses  to  the  adult 
population.  More  and  more  the  schools  are  becoming 
community-centers,  from  which  radiate  educational, 
cultural,  socializing  influences  of  the  highest  import- 
ance. We  are  realizing  that  education  is  something 
not  merely  for  the  child  but  for  every  citizen.  Farm- 
ers are  being  taught,  through  the  public  schools  and 
State  universities,  to  raise  bigger  crops;  craftsmen 
are  taught  to  improve  the  technique  of  their  profes- 
sion ;  housewives  are  taught  better  methods  of  cooking 
and  canning,  groups  of  men  and  women  are  taught 
a  readier  use  of  the  English  language,  are  instructed 
in  current  events,  and  in  the  various  branches,  his- 
tory, economics,  sociology,  and  the  like,  that  will  help 
to  make  them  more  intelligent  voters.  This  "exten- 
sion" work  of  the  schools  and  Universities  is  only  in 
its  infancy, — but  it  is  gathering  momentum ;  we  may 
hope  eventually  to  see  practically  the  whole  nation 
at  school. 

The  old  idea  was  that  only  the  select  few  were  cap- 
able of  intelligence  or  deserving  of  education.  The 
American  idea  was  that  practically  all  the  people 
would  respond  to  education  and  become  intelligent 


EDUCATION  FOE  ALL  103 

citizens.  This  idea  is  corroborated  by  modern  sociol- 
ogy. Professor  Lester  Ward,  for  example,  in  his  well- 
known  work  on  Applied  Sociology,  affirms  that  "capa- 
city is  latent  everywhere.  It  is  opportunity  that 
is  rare,  not  ability."  As  it  is,  "only  ten  per  cent  of 
[our  human]  resources  have  been  developed.  An- 
other ten  per  cent  are  somewhat  developed.  There 
remain  eighty  per  cent  as  yet  almost  undeveloped." 

Education  is  really  the  fundamental  human  need, 
and  the  one  great  hope  for  the  future.  The  task  of 
progress  is  not  so  much  in  devising  progressive  laws, 
or  a  just  and  efficient  industrial  and  political  order, 
it  is  in  getting  people  to  want  the  laws,  to  realize  the 
defects  in  our  present  social  order  and  the  means  by 
which  they  can  be  remedied.  The  danger  to  America 
consists  far  less  in  any  lack  of  patriotism  or  loyalty 
among  its  citizens,  in  any  destructive  intent  of  "Bol- 
shevists" or  "reds";  the  danger  to  America  can  be 
summed  up  in  one  word — ignorance.  Let  the  people 
know  the  facts,  understand  the  situations  with  which 
they  have  to  deal,  let  their  minds  be  trained  to  think 
clearly  and  dispassionately,  to  weigh  the  evidence  pro 
and  con,  let  them  be  taught  to  appreciate  the  mean- 
ing and  value  of  old  institutions,  and  at  the  same 
time  to  realize  the  necessity  for  continual  criticism 
and  the  application  of  new  ideas — in  short,  let  them 
be  truly  educated,  and  we  may  breathe  freely  when 
we  think  of  the  future  of  the  Republic. 

SUGGESTED  READINGS 

R.  W.  Emerson,  The  American  Scholar. 

C.  S.  Cooper,  American  Ideals,  Chap.  VI. 

C.  R.  Henderson,  The  Social  Spirit  in  America.  Chapters  XII. 

XIII, 

A.  S.  Draper,  American  Education. 
C.  W.  Eliot,  Education  for  Efficiency. 


104  EQUALITY 

Scott  Nearing,  The  New  Education. 

G.  Kerschensteiner,  Schools  and  the  Nation;  Education  for 

Citizenship. 

Irving  King,  Education  for  Social  Efficiency. 
G.  H.  Betts,  Social  Principles  of  Education. 
R.  S.  Bourne,  The  Gary  Schools. 
John  Dewey,  Schools  of  Tomorrow. 
G.  A.  Scott,  Social  Education. 
H.  S.  Person,  Industrial  Education. 
A.  Flexner,  The  American  College. 
J.  W.  Hudson,  The  College  and  New  America. 
Thorstein  Veblen,  The  Higher  Learning  in  America. 


CHAPTER  XI 

HEALTH   FOB  ALL 

IT  is  only  in  recent  years  that  health  has  come  to  be 
thought  of  as  in  any  considerable  degree  the  concern 
of  the  State.  In  fact,  our  fathers  thought  very  little 
about  health.  When  half  of  their  children  died  in 
infancy,  when  their  wives  showed  the  marks  of  age 
at  forty,  when  epidemics  decimated  the  population, 
they  resigned  themselves  to  the  workings  of  a  myster- 
ious Providence.  Physical  exercise  most  of  them  got 
in  abundance,  sanitation  was  less  necessary  in  the 
sparsely  settled  communities  of  the  pioneer  days,  and 
so  the  evils  of  a  careless  individualism  were  less 
serious  than  now.  Today  we  are  made  to  realize  that 
no  man  liveth  to  himself  alone;  that  individual  ill- 
health  is  a  community  loss  and  a  community  danger ; 
that  a  large  part  of  the  illness  and  premature  death 
of  our  people  is  preventable,  and  that  it  is  the  duty 
of  the  community  to  prevent  it.  In  the  words  of  Dr. 
Thomas  Wood  of  Columbia  University,  "Better  health 
is  to  a  striking  extent  a  purchasable  commodity ;  and 
national  economy  demands  that  we  purchase  it." 

Certainly  there  is  no  more  important  natural  right 
than  the  right  to  health  and  long  life.  And  an  organ- 
ization of  society  which  practically  denies  that  right 
to  a  large  part  of  the  population  is  seriously  incon- 
sistent with  our  ideal  of  Equality.  Not  only  does 
health  constitute  itself  a  large  part  of  the  intrinsic 
worth  of  life,  it  means  opportunity  for  range  of  ex- 

105 


106  EQUALITY 

perience,  and  for  the  formation  of  those  qualities  of 
character  that  come  through  a  rich  and  normal  life- 
experience.  Health  is  one  of  the  most  important 
factors  that  make  for  morality;  bodily  depression 
warps  the  judgment,  causes  irritability  and  discour- 
agement, lowers  resistance  to  temptation,  weakens  the 
will.  It  affects  immediately  the  interest  in  one's  work 
and  the  quality,  as  well  as  quantity  of  work  done. 
As  Horace  Mann,  our  great  educator,  wrote,  "All 
through  the  life  of  a  feeble-bodied  man,  his  path  is 
lined  with  memory's  gravestones  which  mark  the 
spots  where  noble  enterprises  perished  for  lack  of 
physical  vigor  to  embody  them  in  deeds."  From  a 
purely  utilitarian  and  financial  point  of  view,  the 
conservation  of  health  is  of  extreme  importance. 

As  compared  with  most  other  peoples,  the  Ameri- 
can average  of  health  and  longevity  is  good.  Yet 
thirty  million  American  wage  earners  lose  from  sick- 
ness every  year  an  average  of  nine  days  each,  a  wage 
loss,  at  $3.50  a  day,  of  nearly  a  billion  dollars,  besides 
a  cost  for  treatment  of  perhaps  f 200,000,000.  Three 
hundred  thousand  babies  die  annually  in  this  coun- 
try; it  is  estimated  that  at  least  half  of  these  deaths 
in  infancy  could  be  easily  prevented.  Tuberculosis 
alone  costs  the  country  $350,000,000  a  year,  and 
malaria  $100,000,000.  Both  of  these  diseases  are  pre- 
ventable by  known  means.  The  annual  death  rate 
for  the  United  States  as  a  whole  has  been,  in  recent 
years,  about  14  per  thousand  population.  Some 
States  have  rates  as  high  as  16  or  17,  in  normal  years, 
and  some  cities  have  rates  over  20  per  thousand.  On 
the  other  hand,  some  States  have  rates  around  10 ;  the 
State  of  Washington  has  kept  close  to  8.  Australia 
has  kept  close  to  10,  New  Zealand  between  9  and  10. 
With  proper  care,  the  rate  might  be  lowered  through- 


HEALTH  FOR  ALL  107 

out  the  country  to  the  level  attained  in  these  more 
advanced  communities.  To  lower  it  from  14  to  10 
per  thousand  would  mean  an  annual  saving  of  400,000 
lives.  So  Secretary  of  Commerce  Redfield  was  hardly 
too  sanguine  when  he  declared  that  "we  can  save  the 
lives  of  500,000  people  a  year  if  we  choose." 

The  two  prime  causes  of  this  needlessly  high  death- 
rate  are  poverty  and  ignorance.  The  importance  of 
the  latter  factor  is  revealed  by  the  fact  that  while 
in  our  cities  there  has  been  in  general  a  marked  de- 
cline in  the  death-rate  in  recent  years,  the  rate  in  the 
country,  where  hygienic  knowledge  has  been  less  dis- 
seminated, remains  close  to  the  older  levels.  Country 
folks  as  a  whole  pay  less  attention  to  ventilation,  and 
to  the  provision  of  a  normal  and  wholesome  diet. 
There  is  much  malnutrition  found  in  rural  districts, 
and  a  startling  ignorance  of  the  proper  care  of  chil- 
dren. Country  people  are  more  apt  to  ignore  defects 
of  the  eyes,  ears,  teeth,  or  throat.  A  recent  investiga- 
tion sums  up  its  conclusions  in  the  following  words: 
"The  standards  of  living  on  the  American  farm,  when 
tested  by  the  accepted  principles  of  physiology,  sani- 
tation, and  hygiene,  are  alarmingly  defective." 

In  some  parts  of  the  South,  conditions  are  intoler- 
able. Dr.  Frederic  T.  Gates  of  the  General  Educa- 
tion Board,  writing  in  1916,  estimated  that  there  were 
two  million  children  in  the  South  between  six  and 
sixteen  years  of  age  stunted  physically  and  mentally 
by  the  hookworm  disease,  while  many  thousands  died 
annually  from  its  effects.  School-inspectors  have  in 
some  districts  found  over  half  of  the  school  children 
defective  or  more  or  less  disabled  from  other  prevent- 
able or  curable  ailments. 

The  effect  of  poverty  upon  the  death-rate  can  be 
clearly  seen  in  available  statistics.  A  bulletin  issued 


108  EQUALITY 

by  the  Children's  Bureau  in  Washington  shows  the 
following  relation  between  income  and  infant  death- 
rate: 

Income  $  450  and  under,  infant  death  rate  242 
"  649    "        "  "         "        "    174 

"  849    "        "  "         "        "    162 

"        1,049    "        "  "         "        "    125 

"        1,250  and  over        "         "        "      58 


Poverty  means  under-nutrition,  lack  of  proper  liv- 
ing-conditions, lack  of  care  during  illness,  and,  often, 
over-work  and  worry,  which  greatly  lessen  resistance 
to  disease.  Dr.  Wood  states  that  one  child  in  every 
five  in  the  United  States  is  suffering  from  insufficient 
nutrition.  Dr.  William  Emerson,  a  Boston  authority, 
recently  reckoned  the  number  even  higher.  In  1917, 
medical  examination  discovered  160,000  children  in 
the  high  schools  alone  of  New  York  City  who  "show 
the  stigmata  of  prolonged  undernourishment/' 

The  parents  of  these  undernourished  children 
usually  age  quickly,  being  often  past  their  prime  at 
forty  or  forty-five,  whereas  professional  men  and  the 
employing  class  very  commonly  keep  efficient  and 
hearty  until  seventy.  Professor  Lester  Ward,  in  his 
Applied  Sociology,  shows  that  the  average  longevity 
of  the  rich  is  practically  double  that  of  the  poor. 
John  Spargo  finds  the  death-rate  among  the  "well-to- 
do"  about  10  per  1000,  among  the  best-paid  laborers 
15,  among  the  lower  paid  laborers  35.  These  divisions 
and  figures  are,  of  course,  more  or  less  arbitrary; 
but  the  general  situation  is  unquestioned.  The  poor 
have  far  from  an  equal  chance  for  life  and  health. 

A  recent  federal  investigation  in  Montclair,  N.  J. 
disclosed  an  average  infant  mortality  of  84  per  thou- 
sand. Among  the  babies  of  business  or  professional 


HEALTH  FOR  ALL  109 

men  the  rate  was  41 ;  among  the  higher-paid  laborers 
the  rate  was  74 ;  among  the  low-paid  laborers,  it  was 
130.  In  the  tenement  district  of  Johnstown,  Pa.,  the 
rate,  recently,  was  271.  Statistics  compiled  a  decade 
ago  revealed  the  fact  that  the  children  of  the  lower- 
paid  workers  weighed,  at  sixteen,  nineteen  and  a  half 
pounds  less,  on  the  average,  and  were  three  and  three- 
quarters  inches  lower  in  stature,  than  the  children  of 
the  well-to-do.  Miss  Esther  Lovejoy,  in  Democracy 
in  Reconstruction,  draws  this  obvious  conclusion: 
"The  great  predisposing  cause  of  premature  death  is 
poverty.  .  .  .  Any  social  scheme  that  insures  a  fair 
standard  of  living  will  reduce  the  death-rate.  .  .  . 
We  should  have  not  only  minimum  wages,  upon  which 
men  and  women  can  live  without  working  themselves 
to  death,  but  we  should  have  minimum  standards  of 
living,  below  which  human  beings  should  not  be  per- 
mitted to  fall.  ...  It  is  self-evident  that  conditions 
that  condemn  millions  of  people  to  premature  death 
are  public  nuisances  that  should  be  legally  abated 
without  loss  of  time." 

Surely  every  child  that  is  born  an  American  should 
have  the  best  possible  chance  for  health  and  long  life. 
If  the  children  of  the  poor  die  in  great  numbers,  or 
grow  up  stunted,  coarsened,  dull  of  mind  and  sickly 
of  body,  society  has  failed  in  its  duty.  As  Mr.  Walter 
Weyl  forcibly  puts  it,  "Every  preventable  death  is  a 
reflection  upon  the  good  will  or  the  intelligence  of  the 
community  which  suffers  it."  "On  a  mere  calculation 
of  dollars  and  cents,  it  is  a  foolish  extravagance  to 
allow  a  baby  to  die  for  lack  of  a  few  dollars'  worth  of 
pure  milk,  or  to  allow  an  expensively  bred  workman 
to  die  for  lack  of  a  few  hundred  dollars  spent  in  pro- 
tection and  prevention.  But  we  do  not  yet  realize 
that  it  is  we  as  a  community  who  pay  for  these  deaths, 


110  EQUALITY 

although  we  only  too  clearly  realize  that  it  is  we  who 
pay  for  their  prevention." 

England  and  America  have  attained  their  indus- 
trial pre-eminence  at  the  cost  of  the  lives  and  health 
of  their  workers.  The  appallingly  large  percentage 
of  volunteers  and  drafted  men  rejected  because  of 
poor  physical  condition  in  both  countries  shows,  more 
than  anything  else,  the  result  of  the  working-condi- 
tions in  our  factories  and  mills  and  mines,  and  the 
living  conditions  of  the  poorer  half  of  our  population. 
Tuberculosis  will  always  be  with  us  while  we  have 
congested  slums.  Men  below  weight,  under-developed 
muscularly,  and  weak  in  resistance  to -disease,  will 
always  exist  in  great  numbers  while  they  are  thought 
of  as  mere  "hands,"  to  be  hired  at  the  lowest  rate  for 
which  they  will  work,  and  crowded  into  uncomfort- 
able and  unsanitary  homes. 

Many  movements  for  the  amelioration  of  this  shock- 
ing situation  are  under  way.  Wages  of  some  of  the 
poorest  paid  workers  have  been  raised.  Factories  are 
becoming  cleaner,  lighter,  less  dusty,  better  ventil- 
ated. Housing  laws  are  making  impossible  the  worst 
types  of  earlier  tenements.  Bad  as  conditions  are  in 
New  York  City  today,  the  tenement-house  legislation 
of  recent  years  has  had  a  large  part  in  the  reduction 
of  that  city's  death-rate  from  nearly  19  to  13.5  per 
thousand.  Pure  food  and  pure  milk  laws  have  like- 
wise been  of  great  value.  Motherhood  classes  are 
teaching  ignorant  women  not  to  expose  milk  to  air, 
heat,  and  flies,  and  averting  many  other  perils  from 
their  babies. 

Most  important  of  all,  perhaps,  is  the  extension  of 
physical  education  in  the  public  schools.  School 
nurses  are  discovering  defects  and  contagious  diseases 
in  the  children,  and  are  explaining  to  their  parents 


HEALTH  FOR  ALL  111 

the  necessity  of  treatment.  The  annual  physical  ex- 
amination of  school  children  will  soon,  it  is  to  be 
hoped,  become  universal.  It  is  said  that  from  twenty 
to  thirty  per  cent  of  our  school  children  have  defects 
of  vision — which  often  result  in  headaches,  stomach 
troubles,  or  nervousness.  A  smaller  number  have  de- 
fects of  hearing,  a  great  many  have  nose  and  throat 
troubles,  and  perhaps  nine  out  of  ten  have  defective 
teeth — often  the  obscure  cause  of  serious  ailments 
which  appear  in  later  life. 

In  addition  to  these  periodic  examinations,  with 
the  correction  of  defects  revealed,  and  to  the  constant 
watchfulness  of  the  school  nurses,  the  public  school 
children  are  being  trained  in  personal  health-habits 
and  taught  the  principles  of  modern  hygiene  and  sani- 
tation. Clean,  airy,  sunny,  well-ventilated  school- 
houses  are  an  object-lesson  of  the  first  importance. 
Some  States  go  further  and  provide  for  physical 
training,  in  the  form  of  supervised  exercises,  for 
every  pupil.  In  such  ways  a  new  generation  is  grow- 
ing up  with  a  keener  realization  of  the  importance 
and  the  attainability  of  health.  The  notable  result 
attained  through  the  teaching  of  the  evils  of  alcohol- 
ism in  the  schools  shows  what  advances  in  the 
general  health  may  be  expected  to  eventuate  from  this 
education  of  the  children.  They  will  not  be  content  to 
endow  hospitals  to  care  for  the  sick;  they  will  see 
to  it  that  the  causes  leading  to  illness  are  radically 
diminished. 

In  addition  to  the  work  in  the  schools,  various 
agencies  are  engaged  in  improving  the  national 
health.  The  United  States  Public  Health  Service 
controls  the  quarantine  stations  up  and  down  our 
coasts,  and  has  a  splendid  record  of  efficiency  in 
stamping  out  plagues  that  might  easily  have  assumed 


112  EQUALITY 

very  serious  proportions.  It  also  maintains  a  number 
of  laboratories  for  the  investigation  of  diseases,  and 
maintains  a  careful  inspection  of  the  private  estab- 
lishments that  sell  serums,  anti-toxins,  and  vaccines. 
It  has  conducted  sanitary  surveys  in  several  States 
and  secured  the  passage  of  many  ordinances  that  reg- 
ulate the  disposal  of  waste,  the  safeguarding  of  the 
water-supply,  the  prevention  of  fly-breeding  and  other 
hygienic  measures. 

Another  very  efficient  organization  for  the  improve- 
ment of  health,  both  in  this  country  and  in  various 
foreign  countries,  is  the  Kockefeller  Foundation, 
whose  annual  reports  show  remarkable  results.  In 
particular,  it  is  waging  a  campaign  for  the  eradica- 
tion of  yellow  fever  and  malaria,  with  the  hookworm 
disease  and  tuberculosis  and  infantile  paralysis  also 
the  object  of  vigorous  onslaughts.  It  is  fostering 
medical  education  and  research,  and  in  various  other 
ways  fighting  to  lower  the  death-rate. 

The  National  Tuberculosis  Association  has  dem- 
onstrated, especially  in  its  work  at  Framingham, 
Massachusetts,  that  that  widespread  disease  can  be 
almost  entirely  eradicated.  The  town  of  Framing- 
ham,  by  its  help,  raised  its  annual  per  capita  expendi- 
ture for  public  health  from  39  cents  to  $1.  Before 
the  experiment  was  made  the  death-rate  in  Framing- 
ham  was  about  16  or  17  per  thousand,  and  the  infant 
death-rate  about  85  or  90.  The  first  year's  attack 
upon  the  causes  of  ill-health  reduced  these  rates  to 
about  12  and  69  respectively.  The  following  year 
(1918)  was  the  year  of  the  influenza  epidemic.  But 
the  figures  for  1919  show  a  retention  of  the  gain. 
Deaths  directly  due  to  tuberculosis  have  entirely 
ceased. 

In  these  various  ways  the  opportunity  for  health 


HEALTH  FOR  ALL  113 

is  being  extended  to  more  and  more  of  our  citizens, 
and  we  may  hope  to  see  eventually  something  ap- 
proaching a  real  equality  in  this  respect.  In  the 
meantime,  health  insurance  is  of  great  importance 
in  enabling  the  poor  to  deal  with  illness.  Even  if  the 
present  number  of  something  like  three  million  people 
seriously  ill  at  every  given  moment  in  this  country 
is  considerably  lowered  in  the  near  future,  there 
will  still  be  need  of  provision  for  those  who  cannot 
afford  proper  doctoring,  proper  food  and  care  for 
their  sick,  and  cannot  afford  the  loss  of  income  caused 
by  the  illness.  Hundreds  of  thousands  are  cast  into 
serious  financial  straits  every  year  through  the  ill- 
ness and  the  death  of  wage-earners.  Most  of  these 
people  cannot  afford  the  premiums  which  private 
companies  charge  for  life  and  disability  insurance. 
Indeed,  these  premiums  are  usually  far  too  high — 
more  than  half  the  money  spent  on  them  going,  in 
some  cases,  to  operating  expenses  and  profits,  leaving 
less  than  half  to  be  paid  in  insurance. 

Whether  health  and  disability  insurance  should  be 
left  in  private  hands,  or  managed  by  the  State,  or  by 
the  several  industries,  can  not  be  here  discussed. 
But  in  some  way  the  vicious  circle  must  be  broken 
whereby  poverty  leads  to  ill-health  and  ill-health 
increases  poverty.  A  wise  insurance  system  will  do 
more  than  keep  the  sick  and  their  families  from  des- 
titution, it  will  include  early  diagnosis  and  advice, 
the  insistence  upon  proper  hygienic  precautions,  and 
the  education  of  the  community  in  the  prevention  of 
illness. 

In  such  ways,  and  in  ways  yet  to  be  devised  by  the 
coming  generation,  we  may  hope  not  only  to  see 
America  made  the  healthiest  nation  on.  earth,  but  to 
see  health  and  long  life  the  perquisites  of  every 


114  EQUALITY 

American,  the  humblest  as  well  as  the  most  gifted 
and  most  highly  rewarded.  This  would  be  but  the 
logical  carrying  out  of  our  founders'  dreams  of  Equal- 
ity, rudely  upset  by  the  conditions  of  a  close-com- 
pacted industrial  society,  but  secured  and  made  per- 
manent by  the  vigorous  efforts  of  our  people. 

SUGGESTED  READINGS 

Durant  Drake,  Problems  of  Conduct,  Chap.  XV. 

L.  H.  Gulick,  The  Efficient  Life. 

Woods  Hutchinson,  Handbook  of  Health. 

S  C.  R.  Henderson,  The  Social  Spirit  in  America,  Chapters  IV, 
V,  XIV. 

Lawrence  Veiller,  Housing  Reform. 

Jacob  Riis,  The  Battle  with  the  Slums. 

R.  A.  Woods,  The  City  Wilderness. 

W.  H.  Allen,  Civics  and  Health. 

T.  C.  Horsfelt,  The  Improvement  of  the  Dwellings  and  Sur- 
roundings of  the  People. 

J.  S.  Gibbon,  Infant  Welfare  Centers. 

L.  D.  Cruikshank,  School  Clinics  at  Home  and  Abroad. 

Florence  Kelley,  Modern  Industry,  Chap.  II. 

Charles   Zueblin,   American   Municipal   Progress,   revised   ed., 
Chap.  VII. 

W.  A.  Brend,  Health  and  the  State. 

H.  W.  Hill,  The  New  Public  Health. 


CHAPTER  XII 

WORK  FOR  ALL 

ANOTHER  corollary  of  the  American  ideal  of  Equality 
is  the  demand  that  every  citizen  shall  be  a  worker, 
whether  with  hand  or  brain ;  that  neither  the  posses- 
sion of  wealth  or  position,  or  the  possession  of  a  rov- 
ing and  vagabond  disposition,  exempts  any  one  from 
the  duty  of  contributing  his  share  to  the  productive 
work  of  the  nation.  In  the  Old  World  from  which 
our  founders  came,  there  had  always  been  a  leisure 
class,  that  looked  upon  labor  as  menial,  debasing, 
ignoble;  a  gentleman  might  be  a  warrior,  showing 
prowess  in  killing,  he  might  be  an  employer,  exploit- 
ing others'  labors,  but  he  must  not  handle  tools  him- 
self, or  earn  his  living  by  the  sweat  of  his  brow. 
Because  the  life  of  gentlemen  and  ladies  was  a  life  of 
leisure  and  lazy  trifling,  the  Heaven  pictured  by  wist- 
ful souls  of  all  classes  came  to  be  dreamed  of  as  a 
place  where  all  work  should  have  an  end;  and  labor 
was  looked  upon  as  the  primal  curse. 

This,  however,  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  in- 
stincts of  normal  human  nature,  which  finds  one  of 
its  deepest  satisfactions  in  work.  And  it  is  this  more 
normal  attitude  which  has  received  the  stamp  of 
American  approval.  The  late  President  Harper  of 
Chicago  University  said  on  his  deathbed  that  he  was 
looking  forward  to  the  world  beyond  not  as  a  place  of 
rest  but  a  place  where  he  would  have  more  work  to 

115 


116  EQUALITY 

do.  Our  best-loved  poet  crystallized  this  American 
spirit  in  the  now  so  familiar  lines, 

"Act,  act  in  the  living  present.  .  .  . 
Let  us  then  be  up  and  doing  .  .  ." 

President  Koosevelt,  using  an  adjective  that  has  come 
to  be  peculiarly  associated  with  him,  declared  that 
"our  country  calls  us  not  for  the  life  of  ease,  but  for 
the  life  of  strenuous  endeavor." 

The  title  of  a  recent  volume  on  America  by  a  dis- 
tinguished Frenchman  is  significant:  The  People  of 
Action.  The  Author,  speaking  of  the  apparent  pas- 
sion for  money-making,  declares  that  "it  is  a  question 
not  of  being  rich,  but  of  becoming  so.  ...  To  be  rich, 
for  an  American,  is  not  to  be  a  social  parasite,  but  a 
social  force."  We  do  not  seek  to  become  rich  in 
order  then  to  stop  working;  our  rich  men  on  the 
average  work  about  as  hard  as  the  poor.  Emerson,  in 
his  essay  on  Wealth,  said  that  the  American  "is  born 
to  be  rich ;  not  to  amass  money,  which  is  despicable ; 
not  to  enjoy  it,  which  is  trivial ;  but  to  master  himself 
in  mastering  it."  The  power  that  expresses  itself  in 
conquering  obstacles,  and  the  new  power  that  comes 
from  success  in  the  game,  appeals  to  our  manhood. 
We  despise  the  idler,  whether  a  tramp  or  the  son  of  a 
millionaire. 

It  is  not  that  work  is  "noble"  in  some  mysterious 
way,  it  is  that  working  is  interesting,  working  calls 
into  play  our  powers,  develops  our  character,  gives 
us  the  solid  satisfaction  of  feeling  ourselves  of  use, 
and  a  vital  part  of  the  nation's  life.  And  from  the 
social  viewpoint,  a  life  of  productive  work  is  the  only 
fair  life  to  live.  For  there  is  so  much  work  that 
must  be  done;  and  if  one  man  shirks  his  part,  others 
must  do  more  than  theirs. 


WOKK  FOR  ALL  117 

Indeed,  there  is  a  vast  deal  of  work  that  cries 
to  be  done  but  must  go  neglected  for  lack  of  hands 
and  brains  to  do  it.  We  need  thousands  of  miles  of 
roads  built  in  this  country — only  twelve  or  fifteen 
per  cent  of  our  roads  are  surfaced.  We  need  more 
railway  tracks  laid,  more  terminal  facilities,  more 
engines  and  cars  built,  more  tunnels  and  bridges.  We 
need  canals,  and  deepened  waterways,  levees  and 
reservoirs  and  irrigating  channels.  We  need  plants 
to  utilize  our  waterpower,  over  ninety  per  cent  of 
which  is  now  wasted.  We  need  the  planting  of  mil- 
lions of  trees  to  replace  the  lumber  that  has  been 
cut.  We  need  hundreds  of  thousands  of  houses  built 
for  those  who  are  now  packed  too  closely  in  tene- 
ments. We  need  more  schools,  we  need  more  teachers, 
we  need — but  the  list  is  too  long  to  complete. 

There  is  a  perennial  tendency  in  this  country 
toward  the  aping  of  the  old-world  aristocracies  and 
the  growth  of  an  idle  class.  During  the  War  this 
tendency  was  overborne  by  the  pressure  of  an  aroused 
public  opinion ;  and  even  upper  class  women  who  had 
hardly  done  a  stroke  of  useful  work  before  donned 
their  khaki,  rolled  up  their  sleeves,  and  got  into  the 
game.  With  the  coming  of  peace  again,  there  has 
reappeared  the  type  of  rich  man  whom  the  French 
call  the  flaneur,  and  our  irrepressible  American  slang 
terms  the  "lounge-lizard/'  Still  more  in  evidence  is 
the  well-to-do  woman,  who  has  servants  to  do  her 
house-work,  and  spends  her  time  in  a  round  of  social 
calls,  bridge  parties,  or  other  trivialities,  with  per- 
haps a  little  ineffective  "social  work"  to  salve  her 
conscience,  and  piano-practice  to  keep  her  essential 
uselessness  from  being  too  apparent. 

This  social  approval,  or  tolerance,  of  a  class  of 
drones  in  our  busy  American  life,  must  be  vigorously 


118  EQUALITY 

fought.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  we  shall  not  have  to 
resort  to  a  conscription  of  labor — although  William 
James,  and  other  distinguished  Americans,  have 
thought  that,  if  properly  managed,  an  excellent  pro- 
posal. But  we  must  keep  in  the  foreground  our 
fathers'  ideal  of  a  life  of  useful  activity  for  all — which 
is  the  Biblical  ideal  also — :  Six  days  shalt  thou  labor. 
We  command  you,  that  if  any  would  not  work,  neither 
should  he  eat. 

The  sin  of  uselessness  becomes  more  obvious  when 
it  is  contrasted  with  the  overwork  of  so  many  others 
in  our  society.  With  all  our  labor-saving  machinery, 
we  have  not  lessened  the  labors  of  many  of  our  citi- 
zens. Some  industries  still  employ  thousands  of  men 
for  twelve  hours  a  day  and  seven  days  a  week.  Many 
other  industries  require  nine  or  ten  hours.  And  this 
is  not  at  agreeable  and  easy  work,  but  at  the  hardest 
and  most  monotonous,  and  sometimes  the  most  dan- 
gerous, of  human  occupations.  In  the  steel  industry, 
for  example,  according  to  the  Keport  of  the  Inter- 
church  Commission  of  Inquiry,  in  1919,  approxi- 
mately half  the  employees  were  subject  to  a  twelve- 
hour  day,  the  percentage  of  employees  subjct  to  this 
schedule  having  increased  during  the  ten  years  pre- 
vious. In  the  blast-furnace  departments  of  twenty- 
four  establishments,  4,049  men  out  of  6,315  worked 
eighty-four  hours  a  week.  In  many  departments  a 
seven-day  working  week  was  standard. 

The  two  wrongs,  idleness  and  overwork,  are  sep- 
arable. But  in  general  it  may  be  said  that  idleness 
at  one  end  of  the  social  scale  involves  overwork  at 
the  other  end ;  if  you  shirk  your  share  of  the  nation's 
work,  some  one  else  must  do  more  than  his  share. 

Leisure  is  desirable,  and  necessary,  for  every  one; 
not  chronic  leisure,  but  leisure  coming  after  work. 


WORK  FOR  ALL  119 

This  leisure  is  necessary  if  our  citizens  are  to  be  any- 
thing but  unthinking  "hands";  if  they  are  to  read, 
and  think,  and  be  developed  human  beings,  if  they  are 
to  become  intelligent  enough  to  participate  wisely 
in  the  sustaining  of  our  democracy.  For  the  mere 
matter  of  greatest  efficiency  in  one's  work,  overlong 
hours  are  a  mistake.  Experiments  have  pretty  con- 
clusively shown  that  in  most  occupations  the  average 
man  can  accomplish  more  in  an  eight-hour  day  and  a 
six-day  week,  than  when  working  more  continuously; 
employers  who  have  given  most  careful  study  to  the 
problem  of  industrial  fatigue  are  practically  unani- 
mous in  favor  of  the  shorter  working-periods.  From 
the  broader  human  point  of  view,  it  is  evident  that  a 
forty-eight  hour  week  is  the  maximum  that  can  de- 
cently be  demanded  of  a  man  or  woman  in  any  routine 
occupation.  There  must  be  some  energy  left  to  put 
into  reading  books,  enjoying  pictures,  listening  to 
music,  digging  in  a  garden,  or  in  some  other  way 
developing  one's  capacities  as  a  human  being. 

Professional  people,  employers,  sometimes  fail  to 
realize  this,  because  their  own  work  often  spreads 
out  into  ten  or  more  hours  a  day.  But  their  work  is 
varied,  and  interesting;  it  develops  their  minds,  it 
brings  them  in  touch  with  other  minds,  whether 
through  personal  contacts  or  through  reading.  It  is 
one  thing  to  work  ten  hours  a  day,  at  one  task  or 
another,  as  a  college  student,  a  manager  of  a  large 
concern,  a  lawyer,  a  doctor,  or  a  minister.  It  is  far 
more  fatiguing  to  work  ten  hours  as  a  mill-hand. 
Moreover,  the  work  of  the  student  or  professional  man 
or  employer  is  largely  under  his  own  control ;  he  can 
stop  if  he  is  tired,  he  is  not  some  one  else's  servant. 
The  mill-hand,  if  the  mill  runs  for  ten  hours  a  day, 
is  forced  to  work  for  those  ten  hours  every  day,  at  the 


120  EQUALITY 

risk  of  losing  his  job.  This  is  not  exactly  slavery, 
but  it  comes  altogether  too  near  it. 

Particularly  disastrous  is  the  overwork  of  women. 
For  a  man  may  be  seriously  overtired  and  beget 
healthy  children;  but  an  overtired  mother  means  a 
sickly  or  abnormal  child.  Many  children  today  are 
suffering  from  overworking  of  their  mothers;  and 
with  the  increasing  movement  of  women  into  industry 
the  danger  becomes  more  and  more  alarming.  This 
is  no  argument  against  the  participation  of  women  in 
industry.  Work  in  moderation  is  healthy;  and 
women,  if  they  are  not  needed  at  home,  for  house- 
work or  the  care  of  children,  ought  to  work  outside 
the  home.  The  time  is  past  when  a  woman  can  be  re- 
garded as  essentially  an  ornament,  a  mere  useless 
luxury  for  some  man  to  possess;  though  that,  of 
course,  was  never  more  than  a  badge  of  upper-class 
status,  for  the  great  majority  of  women  since  life  be- 
gan have  worked  as  hard  as  men,  if  not  harder.  But 
while  it  is  no  argument  against  utilizing  the  labor  of 
women,  it  is  a  decisive  argument  against  overworking 
women.  Unjust  as  it  is  to  force  any  human  being  to 
overwork,  it  is  utterly  disastrous  when  that  overwork 
is  bound  to  weaken  the  vitality  of  the  coming  genera- 
tion. 

It  seems  Utopian  to  expect  all  employers  to  be  hu- 
mane enough  to  consider  the  welfare  of  unborn  chil- 
dren, or  of  the  State  as  a  whole.  It  is  therefore  neces- 
sary to  have  stringent  legislation  on  the  statute-books 
forbidding  the  labor  of  women  beyond  the  limit  which 
physiologists  and  psychologists  may  agree  upon  as 
safe  for  any  given  occupation.  Probably  certain  occu- 
pations should  be  forbidden  to  women  altogether, 
though  these  will  not  be  many.  In  particular,  the 
law  must  forbid  work,  of  many  sorts,  before  and 


WORK  FOR  ALL  121 

after  child-birth.  And  if  this  enforced  abstention  of 
women  from  wage-earning  necessitates  State  support 
for  mothers  and  infants,  or  something  of  the  sort,  then 
to  that  we  must  come.  Such  proposals  must  not  be 
damned  as  "socialistic";  they  must  be  considered  on 
their  own  merits.  The  American  principle  of 
Equality  demands  a  fair  chance  for  every  mother  and 
child;  whatever  devices  may  be  necessary  to  procure 
that  must  be  accepted. 

Particularly  inexcusable,  in  our  prosperous  land,  is 
the  stealing  from  children  of  their  playtime  and 
school-time,  to  save  the  hiring  of  more  expensive 
adult  workers.  In  spite  of  the  efforts  of  reformers  for 
a  generation,  child-labor  on  a  great  scale  remains,  a 
disgrace  to  our  civilization.  Something  like  two 
million  children  under  sixteen  are  wage-earners  in  the 
United  States.  The  Keating-Owen  Federal  Child- 
Labor  Law,  passed  in  1916,  was  declared  unconstitu- 
tional by  the  Supreme  Court,  by  a  five  to  four  vote, 
and  the  safeguarding  of  the  vitality  of  the  American 
people  by  preventing  the  labor  of  young  children  in 
mills  and  factories,  thereby  relegated  to  the  States  as 
a  matter  of  purely  local  concern.  Unhappily,  the 
laws  of  many  of  the  States  are  extremely  lax.  A 
clause  in  a  revenue  bill  passed  by  Congress  after  the 
Supreme  Court's  decision  was  announced,  seeks  to 
restrain  child-labor  by  levying  a  tax  upon  the  profits 
of  establishments  where  too  young  children  are 
employed,  or  older  children  are  employed  too  long. 
This  bill  has  been  taken  to  the  Supreme  Court  for 
consideration ;  its  decision  has  not,  at  time  of  writing, 
been  announced. 

A  number  of  States  permit  children  under  fourteen 
to  work  in  factories  and  mills.  Some  States  permit 
boys  of  twelve  to  work  in  mines.  Many  States  permit 


122  EQUALITY 

young  children  to  work  on  night-shifts.  Few  States 
set  an  eight-hour  maximum  for  the  child's  working- 
day.  Where  humane  restrictions  are  written  into  the 
Statutes,  they  are  commonly  waived  for  the  benefit  of 
certain  industries — as  for  the  canning  industry,  be- 
cause of  the  perishable  nature  of  fruits  and  vege- 
tables. Moreover,  such  laws  as  exist  are  seldom 
strictly  enforced.  A  Government  Commission  investi- 
gating the  matter  in  1918  found  that  in  New  York 
City  in  one  of  the  largest  industries  over  ninety-six 
per  cent  of  the  factories  employing  women  and  chil- 
dren were  violating  some  provision  of  the  child-labor 
laws.  In  three  months  of  a  recent  year,  one  hundred 
and  fifteen  prosecutions  were  instituted  in  Ohio  for 
violations  of  the  child-labor  and  woman's-labor  laws. 
In  three-fourths  of  these  cases  the  fines  imposed  were 
remitted  or  suspended.  In  other  States  there  is 
scarcely  even  an  attempt  at  prosecution,  public  opin- 
ion being  unfavorable  to  enforcement.  This  state 
of  things  is  likely  to  continue  until  the  people  in 
general  awake  to  the  serious  public  menace  of  this 
exploitation  of  the  children. 

The  National  Child-Labor  Committee  is  responsible 
for  the  statement  that  during  the  first  half  of  1920 
there  was  an  increase  of  child-labor  in  fourteen  States. 
Most  of  this  can  not  be  restricted  by  the  existing 
laws.  On  the  farms,  and  in  the  cotton  fields,  chil- 
dren are  set  to  work  by  their  parents;  in  some  cases 
children  five  years  old  have  been  found  doing  a  pretty 
long  day's  work.  Instances  are  cited  by  investigators 
where  parents  have  insisted  upon  their  children's 
working,  that  they  might  add  a  little  to  the  family 
income  and  purchase  an  automobile  or  some  other 
luxury ! 

It  seems  to  be  not  enough  to  plead  for  the  child's, 


WORK  FOR  ALL  123 

right  to  play  and  to  schooling,  to  point  out  that  to 
spend  his  days  in  productive  labor,  while  normal  for 
an  adult,  is  a  misuse  of  the  formative  years,  when 
a  child  should  put  all  its  energies  into  learning  about 
the  world  and  building  up  a  sound  foundation  of 
health.  Even  to  point  to  the  demoralization  of  child- 
workers,  the  increase  of  juvenile  delinquency,  which 
is  very  striking  among  these  working-children,  arouses 
little  attention.  We  must  address  our  appeals  to 
the  pocket-book! 

Well,  the  argument  on  this  basis  is  conclusive.  Sta- 
tistics show  that  "for  every  dollar  earned  by  a  child 
under  fourteen,  tenfold  will  be  taken  from  its  earning 
capacity  in  later  years."  There  is  an  immediate  gain 
to  the  employer;  but  in  the  long  run  the  State  loses 
far  more  than  it  gains  by  the  premature  entrance  of 
children  into  industry.  The  total  earning  capacity 
of  a  man  during  his  working-life  is  far  greater  if  he 
waits  until  his  health  is  secured  upon  a  firm  basis 
by  a  carefully  safeguarded  childhood,  and  a  reason- 
able degree  of  education  is  secured,  before  he  enters 
the  ranks  of  the  wage-earners. 

Kecent  studies  show  clearly  the  increase  of  dis- 
eases among  children  who  go  to  work;  the  normal 
exercise  and  growth  of  their  bodies  is  interfered  with ; 
they  become  prematurely  old  or  unfit.  In  addition  to 
this  almost  universal  effect,  children  are  far  more  apt 
to  be  careless  in  their  handling  of  machinery;  in  a 
recent  year  twenty  thousand  children  under  sixteen 
were  killed  or  injured  in  industry  in  Massachusetts 
alone.  If  carefully  prepared  figures  were  available 
for  the  country  as  a  whole,  they  would  be  appalling. 
The  eugenic  loss  is  of  serious  import ;  we  are  impair- 
ing the  vitality  of  future  generations  by  this  sacrifice 
of  our  children  to  the  greedy  jaws  of  industry.  This 


124  EQUALITY 

utilitarian  consideration  should  move  those  who  can 
coldly  contemplate  the  sight  of  thousands  of  boys 
and  girls,  pale  and  listless,  ignorant,  uneducated, 

"weeping  in  the  playtime  of  the  others, 
In  the  country  of  the  free." 

The  pathos  of  the  overwork  of  women  and  children 
is  heightened  by  the  realization  that  the  involuntary 
unemployment  of  able-bodied  men  is  a  chronically 
recurrent  aspect  of  our  industrial  order.  Some  in- 
dustries, such  as  coal-mining,  never  offer  continuous 
employment ;  the  average  coal-miner  is  unable  to  find 
work  for  more  than  two-thirds  of  the  working  days  of 
the  year.  Nearly  all  our  industries,  under  their  pres- 
ent management,  are  subject  to  great  fluctuations  in 
the  number  of  workers-  to  whom  they  offer  employ- 
ment. And  it  has  become  a  common  phenomenon  for 
a  mill  or  factory  to  shut  down  for  a  few  weeks  or 
months,  at  a  moment's  notice,  in  order  to  produce  a 
scarcity  of  goods  and  raise  the  price  of  the  product. 

The  amount  of  involuntary  unemployment  in  the 
United  States  varies  in  normal  times  from  four  .or 
five  per  cent  of  the  workers  upward.  In  January, 
1915,  forty  per  cent  of  the  workers  in  New  York  City 
were  reported  out  of  work.  In  January,  1921,  statis- 
tics showed  that  over  two  million  workers  were  out  of 
work,  the  country  over.  That  such  a  situation  works 
severe  hardship  needs  no  argument;  few  of  these 
workers  have  been  able  to  lay  aside  a  reserve  of  sav- 
ings sufficient  for  a  period  of  enforced  idleness.  The 
problem  is  a  difficult  one,  and  cannot  be  discussed 
within  the  limits  of  this  volume.  But  we  must  insist 
here  upon  the  essential  right  of  every  citizen  to  work, 
as  a  corollary  of  his  duty  to  work.  There  must  be 
no  considerable  idleness  at  either  end  of  the  scale — 


WOKE:  FOR  ALL  125 

among  the  rich,  who  can  afford  to  idle,  or  among  the 
poor,  to  whom  idleness  is  the  great  horror.  The  prob- 
lem is  not  impossible  of  solution;  many  proposals, 
tried  here  and  there,  offer  ways  to  ameliorate  or  cure 
this  evil  of  our  industrial  system.  We  may  hesitate 
to  commit  ourselves  to  this  or  that  "radical"  proposal. 
But  somehow  America  must  ensure  to  every  able- 
bodied  person  the  opportunity  to  work — if  possible, 
at  a  vocation  congenial  to  his  powers  and  tastes — but 
at  least  at  a  job  that  will  maintain  his  self-respect 
and  ensure  him  and  his  family  against  destitution. 
Work  is  a  universal  need,  and  must  always  be  open 
to  all. 

We  may  go  further,  and  say  that  reasonably  pleas- 
ant work  is  the  due  of  every  American  citizen. 
Whether  all  necessary  work  can  be  made,  by  the 
progress  of  human  invention,  reasonably  pleasant, 
and,  if  not,  who  is  to  do  the  hopelessly  disagreeable 
work,  are  questions  not  easy  to  answer.  Possibly  we 
may  some  day  accept  William  James's  suggestion,  and 
through  a  six  month's  or  a  year's  conscription  of  our 
youth,  require  every  citizen  to  do  his  share  of  the 
dirty  and  disagreeable  work  that  must  be  done.  But 
certainly  most  work  can  be  made  reasonably  pleasant 
for  the  healthy  adult.  And  there  is  no  excuse  for  the 
dusty,  sunless,  poorly  ventilated,  unsanitary  factories 
and  mills  that  still  so  largely  disgrace  our  civiliza- 
tion. It  is  useless  to  speak  of  the  "dignity  of  labor" 
to  men  and  women  whose  labor  is  spent  in  ugly  and 
unhealthy  surroundings.  Nothing  is  more  important 
than  to  maintain  a  good  morale  among  workers ;  their 
degree  of  zest  in  their  work  will  affect  not  only  the 
quantity  and  quality  of  goods  produced,  but  their 
health,  their  attitude  toward  their  fellowmen,  and 
their  happiness.  "In  some  way  we  must  get  the 


126  EQUALITY 

spiritual  appeal  of  the  job."  It  cannot  be  got  when 
work  is  too  monotonous,  too  hard,  too  disagreeable,  or 
carried  on  amid  too  disagreeable  surroundings. 

In  spite  of  the  unpleasant  and  unhygienic  working 
conditions  that  still  so  largely  persist,  this  is  a  point 
in  which  America  is  taking  the  lead.  There  are  al- 
ready a  great  many  factories  and  business  houses  that 
are  healthful  and  delightful  places  to  work  in;  and 
their  number  is  increasing  yearly.  Needless  to  say, 
in  such  concerns  the  employees  are  very  loyal  and 
the  labor  troubles  small.  A  Swedish  industrial  ex- 
pert who  recently  visited  this  country  has  published 
a  book  whose  title,  translated,  reads  Joy  of  Work: 
Lessons  from  America.  "At  sight  of  all  this  beauty," 
she  writes,  "which  enhances  existence  and  makes 
labor  lighter  to  the  many  workers,  one  feels  that  man- 
kind has  actually  advanced." 

It  should  be  needless  to  add  that  work  in  America 
must  be  made  as  free  as  possible  from  preventable 
injuries.  We  have  been  incredibly  careless  in  this 
respect.  In  our  mines  and  on  our  railways  we  kill 
and  injure  two  or  three  times  as  many  employees  an- 
nually as  in  the  advanced  countries  of  Europe.  In 
our  factories  and  mills,  likewise,  preventable  acci- 
dents are  far  more  frequent.  During  the  nineteen 
months  of  our  participation  in  the  War,  some  forty- 
eight  thousand  American  soldiers  were  killed  or  died 
from  wounds.  During  that  same  period  thirty-five 
thousand  men,  women,  and  children  were  killed  in 
American  industries.  This  casualty-list  goes  on,  year 
after  year,  but  little  mitigated  as  yet  by  the  reforms 
and  legislation  of  the  past  few  years.  Yet  most  of 
these  casualties  are  needless,  and  occur  only  because 
the  expense  of  safety  devices  postpones  their  install- 
ation. But  human  life  is  costly,  too.  And  the  pro- 


WORK  FOR  ALL  127 

duction  of  cheap  goods,  or  coal,  or  transportation,  at 
the  expense  of  thousands  of  deaths  and  injuries  an- 
nually is  a  shameful  aspect  of  our  American  life. 

To  sum  up,  Equality  of  opportunity  implies  a  so- 
ciety in  which  every  able-bodied  person  does  his  or  her 
share  of  the  work  that  is  to  be  done ;  in  which  every 
person  is  guarded  from  having  to  work  too  hard  or 
too  long,  but  given  an  opportunity  to  work  continu- 
ously, a  reasonable  number  of  hours  a  week,  during 
his  working-life,  at  an  occupation  made  as  pleasant 
and  as  safe  as  American  ingenuity  can  make  it.  Play- 
time and  school-time  for  our  children,  care  for  our 
mothers  and  prospective  mothers,  employment  for  all, 
and  such  social  pressure  as  will  require  that  every 
one  does  his  bit — that  is  surely  the  American  ideal, 
the  ideal  that  must  be  attained. 

SUGGESTED  READINGS 

Theodore  Roosevelt,  The  Strenuous  Life. 

W.  C.  Gannett,  Blessed  Be  Drudgery. 

R.  C.  Cabot,  W  hat  Men  Live  By,  Part  I. 

Dorothy  Richardson,  The  Long  Day. 

J.  Rae,  Eight  Hours  for  Work. 

Scott  bearing,  Social  Adjustment,  Chapter  X.     The  Solution 

of  the  Child-Labor  Problem. 
John  Spargo,  The  Bitter  Cry  of  the  Children. 
E.  N.  Clopper,  Child  Labor  in  City  Streets. 
T.  Oliver,  Diseases  of  Occupation. 
J.  A.  Hobson,  Work  and  Wealth,  Chapter  XV. 
Florence    Kelley,    Some    Ethical    Gains    through    Legislation, 

Chapters  I-IV. 

Josephine  Goldmark,  Fatigue  and  Efficiency. 
J.  A.  Hobson,  The  Problem  of  the  Unemployed. 
W.  H.  Beveridge,  Unemployment. 
Edmund  Kelly,  The  Elimination  of  the  Tramp. 
C.  S.  Loch,  Methods  of  Social  Advance,  Chapter  IX. 


CHAPTER  XIII 

PROSPERITY  FOR  ATT. 

AMERICA  is  the  most  prosperous  nation  in  the  world. 
The  rich  are  richer  than  anywhere  else,  and  there  are 
more  of  them.  The  poorer  classes  are,  perhaps  on  the 
whole,  better  off  here  than  in  any  other  land ;  perhaps 
better  off  than  at  any  other  period  in  the  world's  his- 
tory. There  are  here  at  least  no  fixed  social  classes, 
no  rigid  barriers  that  make  it  impossible  for  the 
poorest  youth  to  make  his  way  to  fortune.  Nor  is 
there,  perhaps,  any  land  where  wealth  carries  with  it 
less  prestige.  We  have  no  first,  second,  and  third 
class  railway  carriages  and  waiting-rooms.  Except 
for  certain  snobbish  smart  sets,  which  are  not  rep- 
resentative of  the  true  American  spirit,  a  genuine 
sense  of  social  equality  has  persisted  since  pioneer 
days.  The  rich  man  is  the  lucky  fellow;  but,  in 
general,  we  feel  that  he  is  one  of  us  and  wish  him 
well.  It  has  never  been  an  implication  of  our  ideal  of 
Equality  that  wealth  or  income  should  be  equally  dis- 
tributed. He  may  take  who  can  get ;  and  so  long  as 
the  race  is  open  on  equal  terms  to  all,  we  shall  take 
the  other  man's  success  in  a  sporting  spirit. 

It  is  a  grave  question,  however,  whether  this  atti- 
tude can  be  maintained  much  longer  if  inequality 
of  wealth  and  manner  of  life  continues  to  be  more  and 
more  marked.  We  have  developed  during  the  past 
few  decades  what  is  commonly  called  a  plutocracy; 

128 


PEOSPEKITY  FOR  ALL  129 

that  is,  a  comparatively  small  group  of  people  who 
have  vastly  greater  wealth  than  the  great  body  of  the 
people,  and  proportionate  power  over  industry,  and 
even  over  politics,  journalism,  and  education.  The 
wealth  of  our  prosperous  land  is  being  divided  far 
more  unevenly  than  it  used  to  be ;  a  much  sharper  line 
separates  the  rich  from  the  poor.  Discontent  is  rais- 
ing its  head  among  what  are  sometimes  called  the 
"disinherited  classes" ;  not  so  much  because  of  social- 
istic or  Bolshevist  propaganda — these  doctrines  are 
exotic  on  our  shores,  and  make  no  very  widespread 
appeal — but  out  of  a  natural  desire  for  a  fair  share  of 
the  good  things  of  life.  We  must,  therefore,  seriously 
consider  whether  some  modification  of  the  present 
inequality  in  the  distribution  of  wealth  is  not  de- 
manded by  our  ideal  of  Equality. 

There  are  various  estimates  as  to  the  present  dis- 
tribution of  the  wealth  of  the  country.  One  statis- 
tician declares  that  one  per  cent  of  our  people  own 
eighty-five  per  cent  of  the  national  wealth.  A  far 
more  conservative  estimate  is  that  of  the  United 
States  Industrial  Commission  of  1915,  which  reported 
that  two  per  cent  of  the  population  own  sixty  per 
cent  of  the  national  wealth;  another  thirty-three  per 
cent  own  thirty-five  per  cent,  and  the  remaining  sixty- 
five  per  cent  of  the  people  own  but  five  per  cent  of 
the  total  wealth  of  the  country.  One  man  gets  an  an- 
nual income  said  to  be  in  the  neighborhood  of  fifty 
million  dollars — an  income  equal  to  that  of  fifty 
thousand  poorly-paid  laborers.  Or,  to  put  it  another 
way,  it  would  take  one  of  the  laborers  fifty  thousand 
years  to  earn  what  this  man  gets  in  a  single  year. 
The  twenty-five  or  thirty  biggest  fortunes  in  the  coun- 
try probably  amount  to  five  billion  dollars;  and,  ac- 
cording to  an  estimate  in  the  New  York  Times  in 


130  EQUALITY 

1920,  one  hundred  and  sixty-two  men  have  annual  in- 
comes of  a  million  dollars  or  more  apiece. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  incomes  of  our  poorer  fami- 
lies are  sadly  inadequate  for  the  maintenance  of  a 
minimum  American  standard  of  living.  As  prices  go 
in  1921,  f  1,500  a  year,  or  thereabouts,  is  necessary  to 
maintain  the  average  family  of  five  in  even  a  moderate 
degree  of  comfort.  Yet  probably  fifty  per  cent  of  the 
families  in  the  country  receive  less  than  that.  Re- 
liable recent  figures  are  hard  to  get.  But  in  1919,  an 
investigation  by  Dr.  Harris,  of  the  New  York  City 
Health  Department  showed  that  twenty  per  cent  of 
the  thousands  of  poor  families  investigated  in  that 
city  had  an  income  of  less  than  $600  a  year!  Thirty 
per  cent  had  less  than  $900.  In  Massachusetts,  in 
1917,  more  than  half  the  men  in  the  industries  of  the 
State  received  less  than  $20  a  week — $1,000  a  year. 
Of  the  women  workers,  about  a  third  received  less 
than  $10  a  week.  In  Baltimore  in  1918,  seventy-six 
per  cent  of  the  working  women  and  girls  were  receiv- 
ing less  than  $10  a  week.  The  Interchurch  Keport  on 
the  Steel  Strike,  in  1920,  reported  that  the  annual 
earnings  of  seventy-two  per  cent  of  the  steel  workers 
(who,  with  their  families,  aggregate  three  quarters  of 
a  million  people)  "were,  and  had  been  for  years,  be- 
low the  level  set  by  Government  experts  for  families 
of  five." 

The  most  serious  aspect  of  the  matter  is  that  in 
recent  years  the  situation  has  been  growing  distinctly 
worse.  Father  Ryan,  in  1906,  estimated  that  between 
sixty  and  seventy  per  cent  of  American  laborers  were 
getting  less  than  a  living  wage — which  he  then  set  at 
the  very  low  figure,  $600.  The  cost  of  living  in  1921 
is  probably,  for  the  whole  country,  nearly  a  hundred 
per  cent  higher  than  then.  And  in  spite  of  a  good 


PROSPEEITY  FOR  ALL  131 

many  exceptions,  the  average  earnings  of  the  laboring 
classes  have  not  kept  pace  with  this  increase.  If  be- 
tween sixty  and  seventy  per  cent  of  "working-class" 
families  were  living  in  1906  on  less  than  a  fair  "living 
wage,"  it  is  probable  that  more  than  seventy  per  cent 
were  so  situated  in  1920. 

Many  figures  could  be  cited  in  support  of  this  con- 
clusion, drawn  from  such  reliable  sources  as  the  docu- 
ments compiled  by  the  Treasury  Department  from  in- 
come tax  returns,  and  Poor  and  Moody's  Manual. 
In  his  testimony  before  the  United  States  Railroad 
Labor  Board,  since  summarized  in  a  pamphlet  en- 
titled Relation  between  Wages  and  the  Increased 
Cost  of  Living  (1920),  Mr.  W.  Jett  Lauck  gave  clear 
proof  of  his  conclusion  that,  in  general,  "wage  in- 
creases have  lagged  behind  price  increases ;  and  usual- 
ly they  are  far  behind."  Behind  not  only  in  amount, 
but  in  time ;  that  is,  increases  in  prices  were  followed, 
not  preceded,  by  increases  in  wages.  The  situation 
is  well  known  to  workers  among  the  poor.  For  ex- 
ample, the  Charity  Organization  Society  of  New  York, 
in  1919,  had  a  Committee  on  Home  Economics,  which 
reported  that,  "in  spite  of  the  common  belief  that 
wages  generally  had  advanced,  only  two-fifths  of  the 
families  interviewed  reported  an  increase  in  the  fam- 
ily income.  In  most  cases  the  wage  increases  were 
slight  in  amount  and  far  less  than  the  proportionate 
increase  in  living  costs." 

It  is  probable,  however,  that  we  are  now  to  see  a 
long  period  of  falling  prices.  If  wages  are  not  too 
generally  and  drastically  cut,  the  workers  may  pres- 
ently be  better  off  than  they  were  before  prices  and 
wages  went  up.  Certain  classes  of  workers,  now 
relatively  overpaid,  should  receive  less  than  they  now 
receive.  The  whole  matter  of  remuneration  for  labor 


132  EQUALITY 

is  in  chaos.  He  takes  who  can  get;  while  those  who 
are  not  in  a  position  to  demand  much,  are  fain  to  be 
content  with  little.  Evening-up  to  some  extent  there 
should  be.  But  we  must  not  be  content  with  a  return 
to  the  status  quo  ante.  We  must  be  satisfied  with 
nothing  short  of  the  abolition  of  undeserved  poverty 
— the  securing  to  every  willing  worker  an  adequate 
livelihood. 

We  are  very  far  from  securing  that  now.  To  realize 
that  this  is  so,  one  has  only  to  go  and  see  how  "the 
other  half  lives."  The  housing  conditions  of  a  large 
section  of  the  city  and  town  population  in  the  United 
States  are  a  national  disgrace  that  can  hardly  be 
exaggerated.  Lack  of  air  and  sunshine,  lack  of  sani- 
tary arrangements,  above  all,  lack  of  room,  are  the 
conditions  under  which  millions  of  children  are  grow- 
ing up  in  this  country  today.  Out  of  thirty-eight 
compositions  written  by  New  York  school-children 
from  the  East  Side,  describing  their  homes,  seen  by 
the  writer  some  years  ago,  twenty-one  spoke  of  the 
bad  smell.  If  the  others  did  not  mention  it,  it  was 
merely  because  of  their  habituation  thereto.  There 
are  many  thousands  of  occupied  rooms  in  tenements 
throughout  the  cities  of  this  country  with  no  win- 
dows at  all,  and,  of  course,  hundreds  of  thousands 
of  rooms  with  windows  opening  only  on  to  narrow  air 
shafts  where  no  adequate  ventilation  is  possible.  In 
one  of  the  compositions  above  referred  to,  a  little  girl 
said  of  her  room,  "It  is  so  dark  it  seems  as  if  there  was 
no  sky." 

It  may  be  doubted  if  there  is  any  more  significant 
aspect  of  a  nation's  life  than  the  conditions  under 
which  its  children  are  growing  up.  The  overcrowded, 
noisy,  dark,  unsanitary  homes  which  at  present  are 
the  lot  of  a  large  percentage  of  them  today  are  a  men.' 


PROSPERITY  FOR  ALL  133 

ace  to  the  nation's  future,  both  from  the  point  of 
view  of  health  and  of  morals.  Much  can  be  done  by 
enlightened  housing  legislation.  But  unless  the  in- 
comes of  the  poorer  people  are  considerably  increased, 
conditions  are  bound  to  remain  very  bad.  What 
with  the  wretched  home-conditions  and  the  under- 
nourishment referred  to  in  an  earlier  chapter,  the 
physique  and  the  morale  of  a  large  section  of  our  peo- 
ple are  in  a  fair  way  to  be  seriously  impaired. 

It  is  not  that  the  country  is  poor.  On  the  contrary, 
the  national  wealth  is  increasing  by  leaps  and  bounds. 
But  it  is  becoming  more  and  more  concentrated  in  the 
hands  of  the  wealthy  classes.  During  the  past  decade 
there  has  been  a  far  greater  percentage  of  increase 
in  the  larger  incomes  than  in  the  smaller.  One  ob- 
vious reason  for  this  lies  in  the  fact  that  whereas 
practically  the  whole  income  of  the  poor  is  spent  upon 
the  necessities  of  life,  which  doubled  in  cost  within 
a  few  years,  the  greater  part  of  the  income  of  the 
rich  has  been  invested  in  securities,  which  have  been 
purchasable  at  far  lower  prices  than  usual,  and  has 
been  accumulating  at  a  very  high  rate  of  interest.  If 
the  tendencies  of  the  past  decade  continue  unchecked, 
most  of  the  surplus  wealth  of  the  country  will  be  in 
the  hands  of  a  small  class  of  rich  people,  within  a 
generation. 

If  this  surplus  wealth  were  to  accrue  to  the  "capi- 
talist" class  only  after  the  poorer  classes  had  all  re- 
ceived a  living  wage,  and  were  to  be  used  by  them 
for  reinvestment  in  industry,  we  might  be  content. 
Even  then,  the  great  power  concentrated  in  so  few 
hands  would  have  dangerous  potentialities;  and  it 
is  a  question  whether  the  control  of  industry  by  a 
comparatively  small  set  of  people,  implied  by  such  a 
situation,  is  consonant  with  our  American  ideal  of 


134  EQUALITY 

Democracy.  But  the  actual  situation  is  much  more 
obviously  wrong.  For  on  the  one  Land  we  have  hun- 
dreds of  thousands  of  families  with  less  than  enough 
to  live  on  in  comfort,  and  on  the  other  hand  a  class  of 
rich  people  who  spend  extravagantly  for  the  satisfac- 
tion of  luxurious  personal  wants. 

The  indulgence  in  luxury,  and  extravagant  spend- 
ing, are  comparatively  new  traits  in  American  life. 
But  they  have  been  growing  rapidly,  so  that  recent 
estimates  assert  that  a  quarter  of  the  national  in- 
come goes  today  for  luxuries.  The  rich  set  the  pace, 
and  a  great  many  who  are  not  rich  catch  the  infection 
and  spend  more  than  they  can  afford.  The  result  is 
that  instead  of  being,  as  we  once  were,  a  thrifty  folk, 
we  have  become  the  most  spendthrift  nation  on  earth. 

Most  of  this  expenditure  is  innocent  in  itself,  much 
of  it  is  intrinsically  desirable.  Man  does  not  live  by 
bread  alone;  and  the  billions  of  dollars  spent  every 
year  by  Americans  on  automobiles,  pretty  clothes, 
jewelry,  candy,  soft  drinks,  tobacco,  theatres  and 
movies,  and  the  other  enjoyments  classified  as  "luxu- 
ries," are  by  no  means  wholly  wasted.  But  the  pro- 
duction of  these  luxuries  limits  correspondingly  the 
production  of  necessities ;  and  it  is  a  question  how  far 
any  one  has  moral  right  to  indulgence  while  others 
are  suffering.  Every  dollar  spent  on  personal  en- 
joyment of  any  sort  means  so  much  labor  withdrawn 
from  the  production  of  other  goods.  Ought  we,  as 
patriotic  Americans,  to  look  tolerantly  upon  extrava- 
gant expenditures  of  any  sort,  while  our  poor  are 
wretchedly  housed  and  underfed?  Should  we  not 
consider  seriously  the  motto  adopted  by  the  British 
Labor  Party  at  a  recent  election,  "No  cake  for  any 
till  all  Lave  bread?" 

It  is  not  enough  to  say,  as  we  said  at  the  beginning 


PROSPERITY  FOR  ALL  135 

of  this  chapter,  that  the  poor  in  our  country  today 
are,  on  the  whole,  better  off  than  the  poor  have  ever 
been  before.    It  has  always  been  a  bad  world  for  the 
poor,  and  it  is  still  a  pretty  bad  world  for  them. 
Their  status,  though  it  has  improved  in  some  respects, 
has  not  improved  in  proportion  to  the  increasing  pros- 
perity of  the  country.    In  the  Old  World  the  "common 
people"  were  not  considered  of  importance,  anyway; 
they  swarmed  and  were  swept  away  by  famine  and 
pestilence,  with  little  pity  from  the  ruling  class.    But 
the  American  ideal  was  that  every  human  being  has 
intrinsic  worth,  and  a  right  to  his  share  of  the  good 
things  of  life.    So  deeply  rooted  has  this  ideal  become 
in  our  soil  that  we  can  never  hope  henceforth  to  have 
a  stable  social  order  until  it  again  approaches  some 
approximate  realization.     If  class  conflicts  are  ever 
to  cease,  if  the  "unrest"  that  we  hear  so  much  of  today 
is  ever  to  be  cured,  it  can  only  be  by  the  setting  in  of 
a  vigorous  tide  in  the  direction  of  a  greater  equaliza- 
tion of  the  benefits  of  our  national  prosperity.    Many 
observers  would  put  the  case  even  more  decidedly; 
Professor  Edward  Ross,  for  example,  in  Changing 
America,  warns  us  that  "unless  democracy  mends  the 
distribution  of  wealth,  the  mal-distribution  of  wealth 
will  end  democracy." 

It  is  not,  perhaps,  in  terms  of  regard  for  an  abstract 
ideal,  or  in  terms  of  a  concrete  pity  for  the  sufferings 
of  their  less  fortunate  fellow-countryman,  that  we 
can  most  surely  arouse  the  attention  of  Americans  to- 
day. It  is  in  terms  of  national  efficiency  and  pre- 
paredness. We  are  wasting  our  man-power,  lessening 
our  productive  efficiency,  by  permitting  poverty,  in- 
adequate housing,  underfeeding,  anxiety  over  subsis- 
tence, the  destruction  of  health,  premature  death.  A 
division  of  the  national  wealth  which  allows  a  small 


136  EQUALITY 

percentage  of  our  people,  at  one  end  of  the  scale,  to 
pamper  and  soften  themselves  by  luxurious  living, 
and  refuses  comfort,  health,  leisure  to  a  considerable 
percentage  at  the  other  end  of  the  scale,  is  not  a 
sensible  division.  What  we  should  seek  is  efficiency 
in  consumption,  as  well  as  in  production ;  that  is,  the 
greatest  attainable  welfare  for  the  amount  of  wealth 
consumed.  Luxury  consumption  is  inefficient  con- 
sumption; the  same  amount  of  money  would  produce 
more  valuable  results  if  consumed  in  the  form  of  more 
necessary  things  by  more  people. 

The  problem  of  the  ways  in  which  money  can  most 
efficiently  be  spent  to  forward  human  happiness  is 
a  matter  for  very  careful  study.  But  it  is  clear  that 
our  present  methods  of  consumption  are  far  from  the 
norm.  Certainly  more  money  should  be  spent  upon 
food  for  the  undernourished,  comfortable  homes  to 
replace  the  squalid  and  unhealthful  tenements  into 
which  the  poor  are  crowded,  care  for  the  sick,  edu- 
cation for  the  ignorant,  and  public  works  that  benefit 
the  whole  community;  less  money,  therefore,  should 
be  allowed  for  fine  clothes,  elaborate  meals,  and  the 
costlier  forms  of  amusement.  Our  present  system  of 
distribution,  which  permits  a  great  expenditure  for 
needless  luxuries  on  the  one  hand,  while  on  the  other 
hand  it  denies  the  amenities  of  life  to  others,  is  an 
inefficient  and  inherently  unstable  system.  And  any 
nation  that  permits  such  a  system  to  perpetuate  it- 
self will,  in  the  long  run,  fall  behind  a  nation  that 
evolves  a  more  efficient  distribution  of  wealth. 

Here  and  there  one  may  discern  signs  among  the 
upper  classes  of  a  realization  of  this  truth.  An  Ameri- 
can financier  of  note  recently  declared  that  in  his 
judgment  the  interest  in  acquiring  wealth  was  be- 
ginning to  give  way,  in  this  country,  to  the  interest 


PROSPERITY  FOR  ALL  137 

in  performing  public  service.  Perhaps  we  shall  wit- 
ness a  revival  of  the  spirit  of  the  Greeks  of  the  best 
period,  by  whom,  Professor  Butcher  says,  "money 
lavished  on  personal  enjoyment  was  counted  vulgar, 
oriental,  inhuman."  Perhaps  we  shall  take  Walt 
Whitman's  utterance  as  our  motto : 

"I  speak  the  pass-word  primeval — I  give  the  sign  of  democracy; 
By  God!     I  will  accept  nothing  which  all  cannot  have  their 
counterpart  of  on  the  same  terms." 

Several  distinguished  Americans  have  recently 
urged  "self -limitation  in  regard  to  wealth."  The  well- 
to-do,  one  holds,  should  "take  for  their  own  use  only 
what  they  require  for  the  essentials  of  a  civilized  life, 
and  regard  the  rest  as  a  deposit  for  the  general  good." 
Another,  writing  in  the  Atlantic  Monthly  a  "Word  to 
the  Rich,"  urges  them  to  spend  their  fortunes  during 
their  life-time  in  good  works.  "The  strong  man  has 
reached  his  goal,  but  it  is  not  time  for  resting.  The 
day  has  come  for  him  to  show  other  men  that  his 
life  and  his  work  are  henceforth  for  them,  and  not  for 
his  own  gratification.  He  must  prove  that  he  has  la- 
bored for  the  common  good,  and  that  he  knows  the 
rightful,  wise  use  of  his  profits.  .  .  .  This  plan  gives 
occupation  and  happiness  to  the  giver,  explains,  and, 
if  you  please,  atones  to  his  fellows  for  his  success. 
It  blesses  the  receiver  and  the  giver;  it  cultivates 
kindly  relations  and  feelings  between  the  lucky  and 
the  less  lucky  men;  it  takes  a  long  step  toward  the 
making  of  a  great,  healthy  nation ;  and  what  higher, 
more  pressing  duty  can  the  citizen  have  than  this 
task?" 

Such  instances  as  the  following  are  becoming  more 
and  more  frequent,  The  daily  papers  for  November 
29,  1920,  announced  that  a  young  Bostonian  had  re- 


138  EQUALITY 

nounced  his  right  to  a  legacy  of  about  a  million  dol- 
lars left  him  by  his  father.  "I  refuse  to  accept  the 
money/'  the  young  man  declared,  "because  it  is  not 
mine.  A  system  which  starves  thousands,  while  hun- 
dreds are  stuffed,  condemns  itself.  A  system  which 
leaves  a  sick  woman  helpless  and  offers  its  services  to 
a  healthy  man  condemns  itself.  It  is  such  a  system 
that  offers  me  a  million  dollars." 

Other,  equally  conscientious,  young  men  and 
young  women,  instead  of  refusing  to  handle  wealth 
bequeathed  to  them,  or  accruing  to  them  in  the  form 
of  rent,  interest,  or  profits  from  industry,  are  main- 
taining a  simple  manner  of  life  and  spending  their 
surplus  money  for  social  or  philanthropic  purposes. 
Others  are  returning  the  greater  part  of  their  profits 
to  the  workers  on  some  profit-sharing  plan.  Others 
are  investing  their  surplus  in  the  expansion  of  indus- 
try, while  keeping  the  ownership  of  the  wealth  in 
their  name.  It  is  a  gravely  puzzling  question,  which 
is  the  best  way,  the  most  socially  desirable  way,  of 
disposing  of  the  surplus  wealth  of  the  nation.  It  is 
clear,  however,  that  its  use  for  luxurious  and  extrava- 
gant living  is  not  its  best  possible  use.  Surplus 
wealth  should  be  used,  for  the  most  part,  in  ways 
that  are  socially  efficient  and  just.  The  ideal  of 
Americ:  must  be,  not  unlimited  enjoyments  for  those 
who  are  fortunate  or  clever  enough  to  command  them, 
but  a  widely  diffused  welfare. 

Our  existing  industrial  system  could  easily  produce 
enough  to  provide  plenty  of  food  and  clothing  and  the 
other  necessities  of  life  for  everybody.  If  it  does  not, 
it  is  partly  because  too  much  of  its  energy  is  con- 
sumed in  producing  superfluities  for  the  well-to-do, 
partly  because  production  is  often  purposely  kept 
below  its  maximum  by  the  owners  of  industry,  in 


PROSPEEITY  FOR  ALL  139 

order  to  keep  prices  high,  and  partly  because  the 
workers  often  fail  to  give  their  wholehearted  energy 
to  the  work.  The  War  showed  that  with  most  of  the 
able-bodied  young  men  drafted  from  industry  more 
goods  than  ever  could  be  produced.  And  although 
that  feverish  energy  could  not  be  permanently  main- 
tained, there  is  no  doubt  that  we  can  all  live  in  com- 
fort if  we  utilize  to  the  full  the  resources  and 
inventions  and  human  abilities  now  at  our  disposal. 

It  is  possible  that  some  people  are  incorrigibly 
lazy ;  but  a  proper  system  of  vocational  guidance  and 
training  would  certainly  discover  for  almost  all  men 
and  women  some  work  to  which  they  would  be  willing 
to  give  a  reasonable  amount  of  energy.  Some  people, 
of  course,  are  stupid;  but  appropriate  education  can 
make  all  of  these  useful  producers  except  the  ex- 
tremely sub-normal;  and  these  the  State  must  look 
after — if  for  no  other  reason,  to  prevent  their  having 
children.  Some  people  will  be  improvident,  and  fail 
to  provide  for  illness  and  old  age;  a  proper  system 
of  health  and  old-age  insurance  will  remove  this 
gambler's  risk  and  protect  people  against  misfortune. 
Differences  in  productive  ability  will  remain,  but 
not  such  as  to  deny  to  anyone  a  decent  livelihood. 
There  is  no  need  of  anything  more  than  sporadic 
poverty  and  want,  overwork,  undernourishment,  or 
indecent  housing.  It  is  our  fault,  our  national  crime, 
that  these  evils  exist  on  a  large  scale. 

The  fact  is,  we  have  not  yet  realized  our  national 
unity.  We  are,  in  reality,  one  big  family;  the  mis- 
fortune of  one  class  is  the  misfortune  of  the  nation. 
As  Professor  Leacock  well  says,  "Every  child  of  the 
nation  has  the  right  to  be  clothed  and  fed  and  trained 
irrespective  of  its  parents'  lot.  .  .  .  The  ancient 
grudging  selfishness  that  would  not  feed  other  peo- 


140  EQUALITY 

pies'  children  must  be  cast  out.  In  the  war  time 
the  wealthy  bachelor  and  the  spinster  of  advancing 
years  took  it  for  granted  that  other  peoples'  children 
should  fight  for  them.  The  obligation  must  apply 
both  ways.  No  society  is  properly  organized  until 
every  child  that  is  born  into  it  shall  have  an  oppor- 
tunity in  life." 

The  lot  of  the  children  is  most  important,  for  a 
man's  whole  life  is  commonly  made  or  marred  by  his 
opportunities  during  a  few  years  of  childhood.  But 
the  lot  of  the  adult  wage-earner  should  also  be  a 
matter  of  national  concern.  And  we  should  be  con- 
tent with  nothing  short  of  a  reasonable  amount  of 
comfort — at  least  food  enough,  enough  warm  cloth- 
ing, and  a  decent  home,  for  every  citizen  of  America. 

SUGGESTED  READINGS 

E.  T.  Devine,  Misery  and  its  Causes. 

Jane  Addams,  Twenty  Years  at  Hull  House. 

Robert  Hunter,  Poverty. 

Jacob  Riis,  How  the  Other  Half  Lives. 

W.  I.  King,  The   Wealth  and  Income  of  the  People  of  the 

United  States. 
Scott    Nearing,    Wages    in    the    United   States;   Poverty   and 

Riches. 
C.  B.  Spahr,  The  Present  Distribution  of  Wealth  in  the  United 

States. 

P.  L.  Haworth,  America  in  Ferment,  Chapter  IX. 
W.  Rauschenbusch,  Christianity  and  the  Social  Crisis,  Chapters 

V,  VII. 
H.  R.  Seager,  Introduction  to  Economics,  Chapter  IV,  sees. 

43-45. 

E.  J.  Urwick,  Luxury  and  Waste  of  Life. 
Durant  Drake,  Problems  of  Conduct,  pp.  236-242. 
Thorstein  Veblen,  Theory  of  the  Leisure  Class. 
H.  G.  Wells,  The  Future  in  America,  Chapter  VI. 
T.  W.  Higginson,  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  107,  p.  301. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

THE   SQUARE   DEAL 

IT  is  perhaps  hopeless  to  expect  any  great  proportion 
of  the  well-to-do  to  give  the  bulk  of  their  surplus 
wealth  to  raise  the  level  of  life  for  the  less  prosperous. 
Neither  patriotic  nor  religious  appeals  can  counter- 
act, for  most  people,  the  lure  of  the  personal  enjoy- 
ments, of  one  sort  or  other,  made  possible  by  money. 
"The  money  has  been  fairly  won,"  they  will  say; 
"it  is  ours;  let  these  others  earn  their  own  money; 
the  race  is  open  to  all  on  equal  terms." 

Nor  is  it  to  be  expected  that  any  socialistic  or 
communistic  plan  of  equalizing  wealth  will  commend 
itself  to  our  people.  We  are  confirmed  individualists 
in  our  attitude  toward  the  problem  of  distribution. 

Is  there  then  no  hope  for  a  more  diffused  pros- 
perity, for  a  completer  access  for  all  to  the  good 
things  of  life?  Yes,  the  hope  lies  in  our  American 
ideal  of  the  Square  Deal.  Individualism  in  the 
acquisition  of  wealth  can  be  retained  if  the  race  is 
really  kept  open  to  all  on  equal  terms,  if  every  citizen 
is  given  a  really  fair  chance  to  acquire  a  competence. 

The  threat  to  our  American  system  lies  in  the 
growing  sense  in  the  hearts  of  many  people  that  they 
have  not  really  had  a  fair  chance.  They  had  to  go 
to  work  young,  and  could  not  afford  an  adequate 
education ;  they  have  not  been  able  to  live  under  such 
conditions  as  would  safeguard  their  health ;  they  have 
no  capital  with  which  to  draw  themselves  up  out  of 

141 


142  EQUALITY 

the  status  of  the  day-laborer,  and  their  wages  as 
laborers  are  low.  On  the  other  hand,  healthful  living 
conditions,  inherited  means,  acquaintance  with  the 
right  people,  pull,  leisure  for  proper  training  of  the 
faculties,  together  with  a  measure  of  acquisitive 
ability,  give  their  possessors  a  tremendous  start. 
The  race  is  not  to  all  on  equal  terms,  it  is  to  the  rich, 
the  clever,  the  fortunate,  those  "on  the  inside,"  or 
those  to  whom  some  combination  of  lucky  circum- 
stances and  mental  qualities  gives  the  necessary  start. 

We  may  waive  discussion  of  the  relative  impor- 
tance of  these  various  factors.  Men  who  have  made 
fortunes  usually  attribute  their  success  to  their 
superior  ability ;  while  if  they  lose  out,  they  attribute 
their  failure  to  bad  luck  or  to  the  unscrupulousness 
or  more  advantageous  situation  of  their  rivals.  All 
these  factors,  and  many  others,  enter  in,  so  that  it  is 
difficult  in  any  given  case  to  know  in  what  degree 
success  results  from  superior  ability;  and  still  more 
obviously  impossible  to  generalize  with  respect  to  the 
class  of  earners  as  a  whole. 

But  even  where  it  is  clearly  ability  that  wins  the 
prize,  it  is  apt  to  be  an  acquisitive  ability  rather  than 
a  productive  ability.  It  is  business  strategy  quite  as 
much  as  productive  efficiency  that  brings  returns. 
The  inventor  who  perfects  some  new  process,  the 
manager  who  evolves  an  efficient  organization,  the 
artisan  who  develops  uncommon  skill  at  his  craft,  are 
far  less  likely  to  grow  rich  than  the  owner  of  a  plant 
who  knows  how  to  use  the  brains  and  industry  of 
others  for  the  creation  of  profits  for  himself.  In  fact, 
skill  at  making  money  seems  to  be  in  considerable 
degree  a  specialized  skill,  with  little  relation  to  public 
service  or  intrinsic  desert. 

But  far  more  embittering  than  the  realization  of 


THE  SQUARE  DEAL  143 

these  personal  differences  in  environment  and  endow- 
ment is  the  growing  consciousness  of  what  is  coming 
to  be  called,  in  a  more  specific  sense,  Privilege.  This 
term  connotes  the  fact  that  a  comparatively  small  sec- 
tion of  the  population  have  succeeded  in  getting  for 
themselves  the  greater  part  of  the  natural  resources 
of  the  country  and  the  manufacture  and  distribution 
of  certain  monopolizable  necessities  of  life;  this 
ownership  and  control  enables  them  to  divert  to  them- 
selves an  increasingly  large  share  of  the  national  in- 
come. Indeed,  any  combination  of  producers  in  a 
given  line,  whether  formal  or  virtual,  so  as  to  create 
a  practical  monopoly,  gives  them  just  such  a  privi- 
leged position  in  our  industrial  system,  making 
possible  what  we  call  today  Profiteering.  It  is  this 
situation,  above  all,  which  must  be  corrected  or  neu- 
tralized if  we  are  to  attain  a  stable  and  generally 
prosperous  society. 

For  example,  some  sixty  thousand  people  own  a 
quarter  of  the  land  of  the  United  States;  a  compara- 
tively small  number  own  a  large  proportion  of  the 
most  valuable  city  land.  As  the  population  grows, 
this  land  becomes  more  and  more  valuable.  The 
farm-lands  of  the  country  have  increased  in  value 
over  two  hundred  per  cent  in  twenty  years.  New 
York  City  real  estate  is  increasing  in  assessed  valua- 
tion at  a  rate  of  about  a  hundred  and  fifty  million 
dollars  a  year.  The  annual  rent  received  from  land 
in  New  York  City  is  said  to  be  about  four  hundred 
million  dollars.  The  Astor  fortune,  of  several  hun- 
dred millions,  had  its  foundation  in  this  rise  in  value 
of  the  land  upon  which  that  city  is  built.  One  farm 
for  which  one  of  the  earlier  Astors  paid  $4,500  is  said 
to  be  worth  today  $50,000,000.  This  is  an  extreme 
case.  But  the  general  truth  is  that  there  is  a  con- 


144  EQUALITY 

tinual  increase  in  land-values,  and  that  the  fortunate 
owners  of  valuable  land  are  in  a  position  to  demand 
an  enormous  amount  of  money  each  year  from  the 
rest  of  the  population  in  the  form  of  rent. 

Now  we  are  not  going  to  question  the  intrinsic 
justice  of  the  private  appropriation  of  rent.  When 
a  man  has  worked  hard,  saved  his  money,  and  put 
it  into  real  estate,  he  is  as  much  entitled  to  interest 
upon  it  in  the  form  of  rent  as  if  he  were  getting 
interest  on  bonds,  or  on  a  savings-bank  account.  But 
apart  from  the  fact  that  a  man  may  inherit  the  land 
he  owns,  without  having  earned  it  himself — which  is 
equally  true,  of  course,  of  the  other  forms  of  Privi- 
lege— there  is  the  other  fact  that  the  increase  in  the 
value  of  land  is  socially  created.  Land  increases  in 
value  because  the  population  increases.  Specific 
lands  increase  more  rapidly  in  value  because  good 
roads  are  built,  and  schools,  and  water-supplies  and 
sewerage-systems,  all  at  public  expense;  and  because 
other  people  move  into  the  neighborhood  and  build 
homes,  and  shops,  and  make  the  land  in  question 
thereby  more  desirable.  Because  of  this  socially 
created  situation,  many  fortunate  land-owners  are 
able  to  get  a  rental  considerably  in  excess  of  the 
average  interest  obtainable  on  the  sum  for  which  they 
purchased  the  land.  They  are  in  a  strategic  position. 
They  are  able  to  say :  "You  cannot  use  this  desirable 
land  except  by  paying  me  this  high  rent."  This  is  one 
aspect  of  what  is  today  commonly  called  Privilege. 

What  is  true  of  land  is  true  of  all  the  natural  re- 
sources of  the  country — the  ore  deposits,  the  coal,  the 
oil,  the  natural  gas,  the  forests.  A  comparatively 
small  class  of  people  have  been  fortunate  or  clever 
enough  to  get  the  ownership  of  practically  all  of  the 


THE  SQUARE  DEAL  145 

sources  of  supply  of  these  indispensable  things.  The 
great  mass  of  poor  people  couldn't  buy  them  up;  a 
few  rich  people  could.  And  now  these  people  are  in 
a  situation  to  ask,  and  get,  high  prices  for  iron  and 
copper  and  coal  and  oil  and  gas  and  lumber.  In  cer- 
tain cases,  owners  of  some  of  these  natural  resources 
have  received  profits  of  a  thousand  per  cent  in  a  year 
on  their  investments.  Coal  we  must  have,  or  freeze 
to  death ;  lumber  we  must  have  for  buildings  and  for 
furniture,  as  well  as  wood-pulp  for  paper.  Copper 
and  iron  are  essentials  in  an  industrial  age.  And  in 
almost  equal  degree  a  long  list  of  important  commod- 
ities. But  because  we  must  all  of  us  have  these 
things,  is  it  right  that  we  should  have  to  pay  for  them 
whatever  the  owners  of  the  sources  of  supply 
demand? 

Any  one  of  a  number  of  other  factors  may  likewise 
give  a  privileged  position,  an  inside  track,  in  the  race 
for  fortune.  It  may  be  a  franchise  that  gives  its 
possessor  exclusive  right  to  supply  a  community  with 
electricity,  or  gas,  or  street-car  service,  or  to  develop 
and  sell  water-power  from  a  given  site.  It  may  be 
the  possession  of  trade-secrets  or  patents.  It  may  be 
the  ownership  of  a  railroad,  or  of  refrigerator  cars, 
or  of  storage-warehouses.  It  may  be  a  tariff  law 
which  chokes  off  foreign  competition  and  enables"  a 
manufacturer  to  demand  a  higher  price  than  he  could 
get  in  an  open  market.  It  may  be  a  sudden  increase 
of  demand  foi  certain  commodities,  or  a  sudden  de- 
crease in  the  available  supply — as  happened  so  strik- 
ingly during  the  Great  War.  But  whatever  the  cause, 
or  combination  of  causes,  that  makes  possible  the  high 
profits,  there  are  few  human  beings  who  will  refuse 
the  opportunity.  In  their  own  minds  these  fortunate 


146  EQUALITY 

ones  are  reaping  the  just  reward  of  their  foresight 
and  cleverness.  To  the  less  fortunate  they  are  just 
— profiteers. 

Some  recent  instances  of  profiteering  will  illustrate 
what  is  meant.  The  profits  of  the  United  States  Steel 
Corporation  were,  approximately,  $23,000,000  in 
1914;  owing  to  the  demand  created  by  the  War  they 
rose  to  |450,000,000  in  1917.  The  Baldwin  Locomo- 
tive Company's  profits  rose  from  $350,000  in  1914  to 
$6,000,000  in  1916 ;  the  Niles-Bement  Bond  Company 
from  $35,000  in  1914  to  $5,000,000  in  1916;  the 
Allis-Chalmers  Manufacturing  Company  from  $25,000 
in  1914  to  $3,000,000  in  1916.  A  considerable  num- 
ber of  fortunately  situated  corporations  were  able 
to  pay  dividends  on  their  stock  of  over  a  hundred  per 
cent  yearly.  Besides  this,  they  greatly  increased 
their  reserve  funds;  the  Steel  Corporation,  for  ex- 
ample, in  four  years  increased  its  undivided  surplus 
from  $135,000,000  to  $493,000,000.  In  November, 
1919,  Mr.  McAdoo  testified  before  the  investigating 
committee  of  the  Senate  to  the  existence  of  profits 
in  the  coal-mining  industry  running  up  to  two  thou- 
sand per  cent  on  the  capital  stock.  Indeed,  the  coal- 
mines were  said  to  be  yielding  their  owners  in  1916  a 
billion  dollars  in  excess  profits  every  eight  weeks. 

The  point  is  that  these  profits  resulted  only  in 
minor  degree  from  increased  production ;  in  some 
cases  production  was  actually  less  than  before.  They 
resulted  primarily  from  increased  demand.  Where 
there  is  a  virtual  monopoly,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
Standard  Oil  Company,  the  Harvester  Trust,  the 
Tobacco  Trust,  or  the  Pullman  Company,  the  price 
that  can  be  asked  is  limited  only  by  the  possibility 
that  consumers  can  dc  without  the  article.  But  ex- 
perience shows  that  monopoly  is  not  a  prerequisite 


THE  SQUARE  DEAL  147 

of  "charging  all  the  traffic  will  bear."  When  a  wave 
of  high  prices  sets  in,  manufacturers  and  dealers  who 
have  what  the  public  needs  will  raise  prices  gen- 
erally, as  if  by  concerted  action.  To  be  sure,  a  reac- 
tion is  apt  to  follow,  a  wave  of  low  prices,  during 
which  many  manufacturers  and  dealers  barely  sub- 
sist, and  many  fail — to  the  more  or  less  avowed  satis- 
faction of  the  consumers  who  have  resented  the  high 
prices!  But  one  evil  does  not  atone  for  another. 
Neither  profiteering  nor  bankruptcy  is  desirable. 
And  the  net  result  of  these  fluctuations  is,  in  general, 
the  increasing  concentration  of  production  and  sell- 
ing in  the  hands  of  a  class  of  capitalists,  who,  because 
of  their  monopoly,  will  be  in  an  ever  more  favorable 
position  for  profiteering. 

According  to  a  recent  report,  the  amount  of  profits 
exacted  from  the  consumers  by  the  sugar  manufac- 
turers and  dealers  in  1920  was  in  the  neighborhood 
of  $600,000,000— an  average  tax  of  $30  on  every 
American  family.  In  1913  the  margin  between  pro- 
duction cost  and  the  retail  price  of  a  pound  of  sugar 
was  less  than  one  cent;  in  1920  it  was  ten  cents  or 
more.  Even  in  1917,  when  the  retail  price  of  sugar 
was  seven  or  eight  cents  a  pound,  the  beet-sugar 
producers  earned  an  average  of  about  sixty  per  cent 
profit  on  their  invested  capital,  while  cane  sugar 
producers  earned  an  average  of  two  hundred  thirty- 
eight  per  cent  on  their  invested  capital.  In  addition 
to  the  profits  of  the  producers,  many  middlemen  and 
retailers  have  been  shown  to  have  made  profits  on 
sugar  running  up  to  a  hundred  per  cent  and  more. 

Much  the  same  story  can  be  told  with  respect  to 
shoes,  and  clothing,  and  scores  of  other  articles.  The 
American  Woolen  Company,  for  example,  was  shown, 
in  an  investigation  by  the  Department  of  Justice,  in 


148  EQUALITY 

1920,  to  be  making  profits  running  up  to  one  hundred 
per  cent  and  more.  A  case  argued  before  the  Courts 
in  1919  brought  out  the  fact  that  a  certain  Brooklyn 
Cloak  and  Suit  Manufacturer  who  could  neither  read 
nor  write  had  within  a  few  years  amassed  a  fortune  of 
half  a  million  dollars.  The  five  leading  meat  packers 
of  the  country,  who  pull  together  and  have  a  practical 
monopoly  of  the  business,  are  said  to  have  accumu- 
lated |178,000,000  in  net  profits  during  the  years 
1915-1917.  Their  rate  of  profit  was  said  to  be  about 
four  hundred  per  cent  upon  invested  capital. 

One  expert  estimates  that  the  corporations  of  the 
country  received  $4,800,000,000  more  in  net  profits 
during  the  years  1916-1918  than  during  the  three  pre- 
ceding years — which  were  by  no  means  lean  years. 
These  excess  profits  would  amount  to  a  tax  of  $240 
upon  every  family  in  the  country.  Another  expert 
calculates  that  during  four  years  the  corporations  of 
the  country  gathered  in  total  net  profits  (that  is, 
profits  remaining  after  the  payment  of  all  their  taxes) 
of  $34,000,000,000.  Not  all  of  the  corporations  in  the 
country  made  large  profits,  of  course;  on  the  con- 
trary, many  corporations,  not  in  a  strategic  position, 
earned  very  meagre  profits,  or  no  profits  at  all.  This 
immense  sum  went  to  those  corporations  that  were 
in  a  favorable  position  to  exact  it.  Besides  the  cor- 
porations, many  individuals  and  unincorporated 
firms  made  fat  profits.  So  that  it  is  clear  that  a  very 
large  part  of  the  total  income  of  the  country  within 
the  past  few  years  has  gone,  in  the  form  of  "excess 
profits" — that  is,  profits  beyond  what  is  considered 
the  normal  rate  of  interest  upon  investment — into  the 
pockets  of  a  comparatively  few  corporations  and 
business  men. 

Even  the  summation  of  frankly  acknowledged  prof- 


THE  SQUARE  DEAL  149 

its  by  no  means  completes  the  tale.  For  there  are 
other  channels  by  which  the  rewards  of  successful 
industry  are  distributed.  A  large  sum  is  retained 
every  year  for  the  expansion  of  business,  or  for  a 
reserve  fund,  or  to  pay  off  bonded  indebtedness.  This 
results  ultimately  in  increased  profits  to  the  stock- 
holders. Again,  the  declaring  of  stock  dividends 
permits  a  really  very  high  percentage  of  profit  to  be 
disguised  as  a  normal  dividend  upon  the  amount  of 
stock  outstanding.  A  great  deal  of  the  capital  stock 
of  the  more  prosperous  concerns  is  nothing  but 
"water" ;  that  is,  it  represents  no  money  invested,  it 
is  simply  a  claim  to  an  income  from  the  industry. 

To  some  extent  these  great  profits  accruing  to  the 
fortunate  industries  and  to  the  owners  of  natural 
resources  are  distributed  among  a  class  of  stock- 
holders. But  this  is  not  a  large  class  of  people.  And 
the  bulk  of  the  stock  is  owned  by  a  comparatively 
small  fraction  of  this  class.  The  "insiders,"  also, 
have  usually  been  the  ones  to  buy  the  stock  at  a  low 
price  and  so  to  make  a  large  profit  on  their  invest- 
ment, whereas  the  other  stockholders  are  apt  to  get 
their  shares  only  at  an  advanced  price  and  therefore 
to  receive  a  smaller  return  for  their  money.  Another 
way  in  which  the  "insiders"  can  increase  their  share 
of  the  booty  is  by  paying  high  salaries  to  themselves 
as  officers  of  the  companies.  For  example,  the 
American  Metal  Company  was  reported  recently  to 
be  paying  $1,000,000  a  year  in  salaries  to  six  officers. 
A  firm  of  Wall  Street  brokers,  according  to  the  testi- 
mony of  its  president,  was  paying  recently  nearly  a 
million  dollars  a  year  for  the  salaries  of  its  twelve 
highest  officers  and  directors;  the  president  and  first 
vice-president  receiving  $161,000  apiece,  and  four 
other  officers  close  to  or  above  $100,000  apiece. 


150  EQUALITY 

There  are,  of  course,  all  sorts  of  methods  of  getting 
big  profits  in  business — if  one  has  a  strategic  position. 
Perhaps  the  most  anti-social  method  is  that  of  cur- 
tailing production  in  order  to  make  the  article 
scarcer,  and  hence  saleable  at  a  higher  price.  For 
example,  in  the  winter  of  1917,  when  the  world  was 
facing  famine,  a  combination  of  middlemen  who  had 
bought  up  a  large  part  of  the  potato  crop  allowed  a 
considerable  percentage  of  these  potatoes  to  rot  in 
the  ground,  because  they  could  make  more  money  if 
there  were  fewer  potatoes  on  the  market.  So,  when 
cargo  space  was  desperately  wanted  and  available 
tonnage  was  not  nearly  adequate,  bananas  were  being 
dropped  overboard  outside  of  New  York  harbor,  in 
order  not  to  reduce  the  price  of  that  fruit  by  glutting 
the  market.  For  a  long  time  during  which  many 
thousands  of  children  and  babies  were  suffering,  and 
actually  dying,  for  want  of  milk,  in  the  city  of  New 
York,  milk  dealers  refused  to  bring  into  the  city  some 
two  million  quarts  of  milk  produced  within  market- 
able distance — and  even  posted  notices  suggesting  to 
farmers  that  they  cease  producing  this  surplus  milk 
which  they  did  not  wish  to  distribute.  Naturally  the 
price  of  milk  remained  very  high,  and  babies  of  the 
poor  died. 

These  are  not  very  unusual  occurrences.  In  the 
South  there  is  a  recurrent  crusade  yearly  against  the 
"overproduction"  of  cotton.  The  Rubber  Growers' 
Association,  in  1920,  suggested  to  plantation-owners 
that  they  reduce  their  tappings  of  rubber  trees  so  as 
to  effect  a  twenty -five  per  cent  reduction  in  the  output 
of  rubber.  This  would  have  the  effect  of  keeping  the 
price  of  rubber  high.  The  consumers  would  suffer, 
but  the  rubber  producers  would  make  a  lot  of  money. 

Profiteering  is,  of  course,  not  a  new  phenomenon. 


THE  SQUARE  DEAL  151 

But  the  War  gave  it  an  enormous  boost.  Business 
men  have  learned  how  to  make  the  most  of  their 
opportunities.  And  while  there  are  not  a  few 
Americans  who  refuse  to  make  all  the  money  they 
can,  and  find  their  happiness  in  producing  or  retail- 
ing needed  goods  at  the  lowest  possible  cost,  the 
general  trend  has  been  heavily  in  the  direction  of 
reaping  the  greatest  possible  financial  harvest.  And 
this  is  the  chief  cause  of  that  very  great  inequality 
in  the  distribution  of  wealth  which  we  noted  in  the 
preceding  chapter. 

It  seems  obvious  that  Privilege  and  Profiteering 
must  be  curbed  if  our  American  system  is  to  be  re- 
tained. For  a  while  we  can  muddle  along  with  a 
comparatively  small  class  of  people  raking  in  large 
profits,  at  one  end  of  the  scale,  and  a  larger  class  of 
people  at  the  other  end  of  the  scale  lacking  the  essen- 
tials of  life.  But  not  forever.  It  will  mean  even- 
tually reform  or  revolution.  And  by  revolution  much 
that  is  precious  in  our  American  tradition  might  be 
lost.  So  the  conservative  people,  who  make  up  the 
bulk  of  our  population,  must  find  some  method  of 
preventing  the  fortunate  holders  of  the  strategic  posi- 
tions in  our  economic  life  from  profiting  inordi- 
nately from  their  situation,  and,  at  the  same  time,  a 
method  of  ensuring  to  the  poorest  laborers  a  decent 
livelihood. 

This  is  the  aim  of  much  of  the  "progressive"  legis- 
lation of  the  past  generation.  A  beginning  has  been 
made.  But — as  the  experience  of  the  last  few  years 
shows — only  a  beginning.  We  have  minimum  wage 
laws  now  in  many  States;  the  minimum  is  usually 
set  below  the  standard  of  comfortable  or  even  efficient 
living,  is  quite  too  low  to  be  satisfactory ;  but  it  is  a 
beginning.  We  have  the  machinery  of  taxation  used 


152  EQUALITY 

to  divert  a  part  of  the  excess  profits  of  fortunate  in- 
dustries to  the  State.  The  Excess  Profits  Tax — 
which  leaves  an  eight  per  cent  profit  untaxed,  and 
takes  only  a  small  percentage  of  the  profits  above 
eight  per  cent — went  but  a  little  way  toward  recti- 
fying the  situation ;  but  the  idea  behind  it  was  sound. 
The  graduated  Income  Tax  and  Inheritance  Tax  go 
much  further  toward  paring  down  the  fortunes  of  the 
rich,  and  enable  the  State  to  raise  its  revenue  without 
exacting  too  much  from  the  poorer  classes. 

Of  particular  interest  is  the  movement  toward  dif- 
ferentiating between  "earned"  income  (wages,  sala- 
ries up  to  a  figure  that  can  be  honestly  thought 
earned,  professional  receipts — i.e.  what  a  man  gets 
for  his  labor)  and  "unearned"  income  (interest  on 
bonds,  bank-deposits,  and  loans,  dividends  on  stock, 
rent  from  land  and  property  owned,  excess  profits 
from  industry).  It  is  no  part  of  the  American  tra- 
dition to  denounce  unearned  income.  But  it  is  an 
implication  of  our  ideal  of  Equality  that  one  class 
of  society  should  not  be  allowed  to  divert  to  itself 
by  this  means  such  a  large  proportion  of  the  national 
income  that  there  is  too  little  left  for  the  greater 
numbers  who  are  not  property  owners.  To  allow 
that  is  not  a  legitimate  Individualism — which  would 
seek  to  give  every  individual  a  fair  chance — but  indi- 
vidual or  class  selfishness. 

It  is  doubtful  whether  taxation  alone  can  remedy 
the  excessive  distortion  of  our  distribution  of  wealth. 
It  is  quite  possible  that  we  may  have  to  resort  to 
State  regulation  of  prices  and  wages.  Perhaps  we 
must  come  to  State  ownership  of  natural  resources — 
the  coal-mines,  the  oil-wells,  the  forests,  the  water- 
power  sites.  It  is  no  part  of  the  plan  of  this  volume 
to  discuss  the  pros  and  cons  of  the  highly  intricate 


THE  SQUARE  DEAL  153 

economic  problems  involved.  The  point  of  this  chap- 
ter is  simply  that  ways  must  be  found  and  utilized  to 
cure  the  generally  recognized  evils  of  Privilege  and 
Profiteering.  The  continuance  of  our  American  tra- 
ditions depends,  among  other  things,  upon  our  success 
in  this  undertaking. 

Success  in  this  undertaking  would  be  the  realiza- 
tion of  what  Roosevelt  meant  by  the  Square  Deal.  In 
his  address  to  the  Ohio  Constitutional  Convention, 
in  1912,  he  declared,  "This  country,  as  Lincoln  said, 
belongs  to  the  people.  So  do  the  natural  resources 
which  make  it  rich.  ...  It  will  help  the  people  little 
to  conserve  our  national  wealth  unless  the  benefits 
which  it  can  yield  are  secured  to  the  people." 

The  fact  is,  in  a  nutshell,  that  prosperity — and  all 
the  human  goods  that  material  prosperity  makes  pos- 
sible— has  been  far  too  dependent  upon  the  accident 
of  birth.  To  give  every  child,  so  far  as  possible,  an 
equal  start  in  the  race,  we  should  see  to  it  that,  how- 
ever poor  his  parents  may  be,  he  has  a  chance  for 
health  and  education  and  an  adequate  livelihood.  We 
must  recognize  that  every  child  belongs  not  only  to 
his  parents  but  to  the  nation ;  he  is  a  potential  asset — 
or  a  potential  weakling,  incompetent,  or  even  criminal. 
We  must  send  him  into  life  fairly  equipped  for  the 
struggle.  And  on  the  other  hand,  we  must  see  to  it 
that  the  possession  of  the  strategic  positions  by  a 
group  of  owners  of  land  and  resources  and  important 
industries  does  not  make  it  too  difficult  for  him  to 
succeed,  and  win  for  his  family  a  fair  share  of  the 
good  things  of  life.  It  is  not  that  we  begrudge  luxury 
and  power  to  the  fortunate  and  clever,  but  that  we 
must  have  a  Square  Deal  for  those  who  are  less  for- 
tunate or  less  clever  in  the  acquisitive  line.  As 
Wilson  has  written,  "America  was  set  up  that  she 


154  EQUALITY 

might  be  different  from  all  the  nations  of  the  world 
in  this:  that  the  strong  could  not  push  the  weak  to 
the  wall." 

SUGGESTED  READINGS 

J.  A.  Ryan,  Distributive  Justice. 

J.  M.  Mecklin,  Introduction  to  Social  Ethics,  Chapter  XVII. 

H.  George,  Jr.,  The  Menace  of  Privilege. 

F.  C.  Howe,  Privilege  and  Democracy  in  America. 

H.  D.  Lloyd,  Wealth  against  Commonwealth. 

W.  J.  Ashley,  The  Tariff  Problem. 

F.  W.  Taiissig,  Principles  of  Economics,  Chapters  36,  37. 

H.  W.  Hamilton,  Current  Economic  Problems,  pp.  268-343. 

Stephen  Leacock,  The  Unsolved  Riddle  of  Social  Justice. 

W.  L.  Tucker,  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  112,  p.  480 

H.  A.  Overstreet,  in  International  Journal  of  Ethics,  vol.  25, 

p.  165. 
A.  K.  Rogers,  in  International  Journal  of  Ethics,  vol.  28,  p. 

143,  406. 
J.  H.  Hollander,  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  110,  p.  492. 


PART  THREE 
DEMOCRACY 


CHAPTER  XV 

POLITICAL  DEMOCRACY 

THE  Declaration  of  Independence  declared  that  gov- 
ernments "derive  their  just  powers  from  the  consent 
of  the  governed."  Ldncoln  denned  Democracy  as 
"government  of  the  people,  by  the  people,  for  the 
people";  and  defended  it  by  the  assertion,  already 
quoted,  that  "no  man  is  good  enough  to  govern  an- 
other man  without  that  other's  consent." 

More  concretely,  Democracy  implies  the  choosing 
of  legislators  and  executives  by  the  people.  In  an 
autocracy  the  rulers  are  not  chosen  by  the  people ;  or 
even  if,  on  rare  occasion,  they  are  so  chosen,  they  are 
not  responsible  to  the  people  when  once  in  office. 
Democracy  does  away  with  the  doctrine  of  the  divine 
right  of  monarchs  to  do  as  they  please ;  it  makes  the 
voice  of  the  people  the  ultimate  authority.  Practi- 
cally, that  means  the  voice  of  the  majority  of  the 
people;  for  if  action  is  to  go  forward,  there  can  be 
no  waiting  for  unanimous  agreement.  But  no  indi- 
vidual or  class  in  a  democracy  has  a  privileged  posi- 
tion. Every  adult  counts  for  one;  and  the  prepon- 
derance of  opinion  or  desire  determines  policy. 

Not  only  do  all  the  people,  in  a  democracy,  have 
a  share  in  the  election  of  officials  to  govern,  but  every 
individual  has  the  right  to  seek  and  hold  office.  There 
is  no  hereditary  ruling  class;  anyone  can  attain  the 
highest  political  position  who  can  persuade  his  fellow- 

157 


1"58  DEMOCRACY 

countrymen  of  his  fitness  therefor.  In  this  way,  too, 
Democracy  dares  to  trust  the  common  man. 

American  Democracy  did  not  spring  into  being 
fullgrown.  On  the  contrary,  it  has  been  in  process 
of  realization  from  the  days  of  the  early  settlers,  and 
is  still  but  partially  achieved.  Maryland  was  the 
first  State  to  proclam  universal  manhood  suffrage. 
The  Nineteenth  Amendment  to  the  Constitution, 
ratified  in  1920,  finally  included  womanhood  suffrage 
in  the  national  policy.  But  so  long  as  Privilege  sits 
in  high  places,  so  long  as  "the  Interests"  have  an 
undue  control  of  legislation,  so  long  as  masses  of 
people  remain  politically  uneducated,  the  prey  of 
clever  bosses,  demagogues,  and  a  propagandist  press, 
so  long  as  millions  of  workers  have  no  say  whatever 
as  to  the  conditions  of  their  workaday  life,  democracy 
is  still  but  partially  achieved. 

Still,  America  has  already  achieved  a  large  measure 
of  its  democratic  ideal.  And  most  of  us  will  agree 
with  Ambassador  Choate's  dictum  that  "the  cardinal 
principle  upon  which  American  institutions  rest,  the 
absolute  political  equality  of  all  citizens  with  uni- 
versal suffrage,  is  the  secret  of  American  success." 
It  is  important,  then,  to  ask,  What  is  the  advantage 
of  Democracy?  Why  should  we  be  so  eager  to  main- 
tain and  extend  this  ideal? 

The  apologists  for  autocracy  can  make  out  a  per- 
suasive case  for  that  system.  Democracy,  they  say, 
is  hopelessly  inefficient;  it  "lowers  the  aims  of  the 
best  to  the  standard  of  the  masses,  while  aristocracy 
must  push  the  masses  with  their  lower  interests  into 
a  striving  toward  higher  ends." 

We  must  admit  that  genuine  aristocracy — that  is, 
a  government  by  the  best  people — would  push  the 
masses  toward  higher  ends.  But  actually,  an  autoc- 


POLITICAL  DEMOCEACY  159 

racy  is  seldom  an  aristocracy.  The  chances  are  al- 
most overwhelming  that  hereditary  and  irresponsible 
rulers  will  be  self-seeking,  oblivious  to  the  real  needs 
of  the  people,  blinded  by  class-prejudice,  and  very 
likely  by  imperialistic  dreams.  Even  with  respect  to 
efficiency,  apart  from  ideals,  autocracies  have  seldom 
achieved  striking  success.  Neither  have  democracies. 
But  it  is  an  open  question  whether  there  is  not,  on 
the  whole,  more  likelihood  of  efficiency,  in  the  long 
run,  in  a  democracy  than  in  an  autocracy. 

The  one  undoubted  advantage  of  an  autocracy  is 
that  it  permits  of  quicker  decisions  and  quicker  ac- 
tion. There  is  no  need  to  wait  for  deliberation  by 
popular  assemblies  or  a  popular  vote.  The  few  who 
control  the  national  destinies  can  act  instantly  in 
any  crisis.  This  is  of  particular  value  in  declaring 
war,  and  carrying  out  a  truculent  foreign  policy  in 
general.  But  this  alleged  advantage  is,  after  all,  a 
dangerous  and  undesirable  one.  Autocracies  lead 
their  subjects  into  wars  and  embroilments.  The 
slower  processes  of  democracy  make  for  a  wiser 
caution  in  action  and  a  greater  friendliness  in 
international  relations. 

The  rule  of  kings  and  a  Junker-class  has  been  en- 
dured so  long  in  the  world's  history  largely  because 
they  offered  vigilant  protection  against  foreign  inva- 
sion. With  the  evolution  of  an  international  mechan- 
ism to  prevent  invasions  and  imperialisms,  democracy 
can  develop  unafraid.  And  our  own  country,  because 
of  its  great  size  and  strength,  and  the  protection  of 
the  oceans,  has  no  need  to  subject  itself  to  a  military 
caste  for  protection. 

Democracy  makes  war  less  likely,  because  it  de- 
mands publicity.  As  Wilson  has  said,  "Wars  are  not 
made  because  of  the  passions  of  the  many,  but  because 


160 

of  the  intrigues  of  the  few;  and  those  intrigues  are 
possible  because  they  are  pursued  in  the  dark." 
Imperialism  is  not  likely  to  go  far  when  diplomatic 
methods  are  open  and  aboveboard.  Democracies 
sometimes  approve  of  wars,  sometimes  even  of  un- 
righteous wars;  but  history  shows  clearly  that  they 
tend  to  be  more  pacific  than  autocracies. 

It  is  not  true  that  autocracy  implies  a  greater  cen- 
tralization of  power  or  a  greater  subordination  of  the 
individual  to  the  State.  Democracy  can  have  these 
things  precisely  in  the  degree  that  it  desires.  It  may 
put  experts  in  office  if  it  wishes,  and  give  them  as 
much  authority  as  it  deems  wise.  An  autocracy  can 
never  develop  so  long  as  these  officials  hold  office  for 
but  a  limited  period,  or  are  subject  to  recall  if  they 
do  not  satisfy  the  electorate.  Our  democracy  is  the 
result  of  a  revolt  against  autocratic  and  irresponsible 
power.  Hence  we  are  still  afraid  of  the  centraliza- 
tion of  authority,  and  distrustful  of  professional 
statesmen.  But  there  is  nothing  to  prevent  us  from 
training  a  body  of  men  in  the  art  of  government  and 
utilizing  their  services  for  the  attainment  of  the 
collective  will.  Democracy  can,  and  must,  learn  that 
efficiency  need  not  mean  tyranny. 

Even  with  our  as  yet  clumsy  mechanism  of  democ- 
racy we  have  been  able  in  most  matters  to  make  wiser 
decisions  than  are  likely  in  an  autocracy.  It  is  a 
mistake  to  assume  that  ruling  classes  will  have  a 
better  judgment,  or  higher  ideals,  than  common  peo- 
ple. Lord  Bryce,  in  his  great  book,  The  American 
Commonwealth,  asserted  that  "where  the  humbler 
classes  have  differed  in  opinion  from  the  higher,  they 
have  often  been  proved  by  the  event  to  have  been  right 
and  their  so-called  betters  wrong."  A  distinguished 
American,  himself  a  highly  cultured  gentleman,  has 


POLITICAL  DEMOCKACY  161 

gone  so  far  as  to  say  that  "there  never  has  been  a 
period  in  our  history,  since  the  American  nation  was 
independent,  when  it  would  not  have  been  a  calamity 
to  have  it  controlled  by  its  highly  educated  men 
alone." 

It  is  not,  then,  merely  a  matter  of  "rights,"  it  is  a 
matter  of  actual  expediency  to  cleave  to  democracy. 
For  democracy  is  the  method  that  brings  the  most 
widespread  and  diverse  intelligence  to  bear  upon 
public  problems.  The  prejudices  of  one  class  are 
neutralized  by  the  opposite  prejudices  of  another 
class.  The  self-seeking  of  one  group  is  cancelled  by 
the  interest  of  other  groups.  Only  by  thus  giving 
expression  to  the  needs  and  ideas  of  every  vocational 
group,  every  cultural  interest,  and  every  geographical 
section,  can  we  get  a  resultant  effective  force  best  rep- 
resentative of  the  general  welfare. 

And  we  must  not  forget  the  educative  influence  of 
democracy.  In  an  autocracy  decisions  are  made  for 
the  people;  in  a  democracy  decisions  are  made  by 
the  people.  To  be  governed  never  so  well  misses 
something  of  the  value  that  comes  from  helping  to 
govern.  Mr.  Elihu  Root  has  declared  that  "the 
greatest,  most  useful  educative  process  ever  known 
in  the  world  occurs  every  four  years  in  the  United 
States  when,  during  a  Presidential  election,  some 
fifteen  million  voters  are  engaged  for  months  in 
reading  and  hearing  about  great  and  difficult  ques- 
tions of  government."  With  all  allowance  for  the 
buncombe  that  they  hear  on  the  platform,  the  unfair, 
partisan  arguments  that  they  read,  the  meaningless 
eulogies  and  the  mudslinging,  there  is  a  solid  nucleus 
of  serious  attention  to  public  problems,  and  a  good 
deal  of  fruitful  thinking  engendered.  One  of  the 
great  advantages  of  the  extension  of  the  democratic 


162  DEMOCRACY 

principle  to  include  women  lies  in  the  impetus  thus 
given  them  to  interest  themselves  in  the  problems  of 
city,  State  and  Nation. 

The  belief  in  democracy  implies  the  belief  in  the 
ballot  as  the  means  of  effecting  needed  changes  in 
legislation  or  administration ;  belief  in  the  ballot  not 
only  as  contrasted  with  the  bullet  but  as  contrasted 
with  what  is  today  called  "direct  action."  This  is 
not  to  say  that  all  strikes  are  unjustifiable.  On  the 
contrary,  a  strike  to  bring  pressure  to  bear  upon 
selfish  and  profiteering  employers  to  grant  a  living 
wage,  reasonable  hours,  or  what  not,  may  be  the  best 
means  available  to  a  highly  desirable  end.  But  the 
use  of  a  General  Strike,  or  sabotage,  or  ca'canny,  or 
the  expropriation  of  owners  by  workers  (as  recently 
in  Italy),  to  effect  fundamental  changes  in  our  insti- 
tutions, is  sharply  opposed  to  our  democratic  ideal, 
which  demands  the  attainment  of  political  ends 
through  political  channels. 

It  is  necessary  to  emphasize  this  point  because 
there  seems  to  be  a  growing  group  of  those  who  de- 
spair of  reform  by  the  ballot  and  advocate  the  em- 
ployment in  far  greater  degree  than  hitherto  of  eco- 
nomic pressure.  The  editor  of  a  brilliant  American 
weekly  recently  expressed  his  attitude  as  follows: 
"When  the  economic  organization  wants  anything 
enough  to  insist  on  having  it,  nothing  else  really 
matters.  In  an  editorial  some  weeks  ago  we  have 
already  adverted  to  the  passage  of  the  Adamson  bill. 
The  rail  way  men  wanted  the  eight-hour  day,  and 
wanted  it  enough  to  insist  on  having  it.  They  got  it 
promptly  from  the  existing  Administration,  and 
would  have  gotten  it  just  as  promptly  from  any 
other.  They  now  seem  to  want  the  Plumb  plan,  and 
have  the  support  of  the  miners  in  this  desire.  We  do 


163 

not  think  much  of  the  Plumb  plan  except  by  way  of 
its  educative  value;  but  if  the  railwaymen  really 
want  it,  want  it  as  they  wanted  the  Adamson  bill, 
they  will  get  it  and  get  it  on  demand.  It  is  clear  to 
this  paper,  in  short,  that  actual  power  lies  in  the  eco- 
nomic organization,  and  that  whatever  power  the 
political  organization  has,  is  purely  factitious  and 
exists  on  sufferance.  Hence  the  political  organiza- 
tion comes  finally  to  nothing  but  a  set  of  dummies 
and  may  be  regarded  accordingly.  No  President, 
Congress  or  Supreme  Court  will  ever  be  found  in  the 
wray  of  any  demand  of  the  economic  organization, 
provided  such  demand  has  the  backing  of  serious 
purpose  such  as  was  behind  the  Adamson  bill. 

"The  thing  is,  then,  in  our  judgment — without  stir- 
ring up  revolutions,  which  usually  mean  the  mere 
exchange  of  one  form  of  tyranny  for  another  and 
hence  do  little  good  and  great  harm ;  without  array- 
ing oneself  against  the  existing  political  or  institu- 
tional order — the  thing  is  to  get  the  economic  organ- 
ization to  want  the  right  things,  the  fundamental 
things,  and  to  be  in  earnest  about  getting  them. 

"Let  the  existing  political  organization  take  its 
own  course.  It  is  keenly  aware  of  the  power  of  the 
economic  organization ;  and  whenever  it  becomes  con- 
vinced that  the  intelligence  and  will  of  the  economic 
organization  is  really  functioning  behind  that  power, 
it  will  yield  without  any  serious  trial  of  strength." 

What  of  this  argument?  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the 
experience  of  "direct  action"  in  recent  years  does  not 
corroborate  this  editor's  assurance  of  its  success. 
Both  in  England  and  in  France  a  general  strike  of 
the  railway  workers  was  beaten.  Volunteers  were 
found  to  do  the  work  of  engineers  and  trainmen, 
automobiles  were  used  to  transport  people  and  goods, 


164  DEMOCRACY 

and  the  people  showed  so  great  resourcefulness  in 
getting  along  without  the  regular  railway  workers 
that  nothing  came  of  the  demonstration.  From  the 
study  of  these  and  other  cases  a  great  many  of  the 
most  ardent  labor  leaders  and  most  radical  advocates 
of  social  change  admit  that  unless  the  public  in  gen- 
eral sympathizes  heartily  with  the  strikers  and  is 
willing  to  endure  privation  for  the  sake  of  furthering 
their  cause,  the  attempt  at  direct  action  is  bound  to 
be  futile. 

It  is  also  obvious  that  there  is,  and  will  be,  no  uni- 
fied "economic  organization."  There  are  a  number 
of  different  groups  of  workers,  some  wanting  one 
thing,  some  another.  If  the  railway-workers  seek 
by  direct  action  to  force  the  nationalization  of  the 
railways,  will  the  textile-workers,  the  metal-workers, 
the  carpenters,  plumbers,  farmers,  and  teachers  sup- 
port them?  Not  unless  they  have  become  convinced 
that  such  a  change  of  policy  is  advantageous  for  the 
country  as  a  whole.  And  if  they  are  convinced  of 
the  desirability  of  the  change,  it  can  be  attained  by 
the  ballot.  They  will  never  consent,  and  they  ought 
not  to  consent,  to  the  dictation  of  public  policy  by  a 
single  group  or  combination  of  groups  which  is  not 
strong  enough  or  persuasive  enough  in  its  arguments 
to  win  in  a  fair  contest  at  the  polls. 

Direct  action  is  the  attempt  of  a  wilful  minority  to 
have  its  way.  It  means  inconvenience  to  the  public, 
very  likely  actual  suffering.  In  engenders  bitterness, 
and  almost  inevitably  leads  to  bloodshed.  If  it  repre- 
sents the  wish  of  a  majority  in  the  community  it  is 
unnecessary,  because  its  end  could  be  attained  by  the 
ballot.  If  it  represents  the  attempt  of  a  minority 
who  feel  themselves  in  a  strategic  position  to  hold 


POLITICAL  DEMOCRACY  165 

up  the  community's  life  until  they  are  granted  what 
they  wish,  it  is  the  very  negation  of  our  ideal  of 
Democracy.  Instead  of  seeking  to  decide  matters  of 
public  policy  by  discussion,  persuasion,  and  a  ma- 
jority vote,  it  proposes  to  attain  its  end  by  a  threat, 
by  browbeating  the  rest  of  the  people  into  accepting 
the  policy  of  a  minority.  Under  an  autocracy,  such 
a  method  matches  power  against  power;  it  may  be 
the  best  way  of  breaking  the  back  of  tyranny.  In  a 
democracy  the  one  thing  most  needful  is  to  preserve 
a  general  respect  for  the  attainment  of  political  ends 
by  the  ballot.  And  any  economic  organization  that 
makes  use  of  the  public's  need  of  its  services  to  force 
its  program  upon  the  State  is  guilty  of  grave  dis- 
service. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  must  recognize  that  groups 
of  workers  are  right  in  pointing  out  that  the  owners 
of  industry  are  making  use  of  their  strategic  position 
to  divert  a  large  share  of  the  profits  of  labor  into  their 
pockets.  Owners  of  valuable  land  and  natural  re- 
sources are  making  the  most  of  their  strategic  posi- 
tion to  make  fortunes  by  demanding  high  rentals  and 
prices.  Inheritors  of  fortunes  are  using  their  stra- 
tegic position  to  add  to  their  fortunes  at  compound 
interest.  Why  should  not  groups  of  workers,  who 
have  no  other  advantage  in  the  race,  use  their  stra- 
tegic position  to  extort  such  terms  as  they  can  get? 

The  answer  is,  Two  evils  do  not  make  a  good.  By 
all  means  let  us  seek  to  curtail  Privilege  and  Profi- 
teering and  devise  a  fairer  distribution  of  the  fruits 
of  industry  and  the  natural  resources  of  our  conti- 
nent. But  let  us  do  it  by  political  means;  that  is, 
by  educating  people  to  see  the  need  of  reform  until  a 
majority  vote  can  be  obtained  for  measures  and  men 


166  DEMOCRACY 

that  will  rectify  existing  evils.  To  seek  a  shorter  cut 
to  this  end  is  to  compromise  the  good  sought,  and 
to  undermine -the  foundations  of  democracy. 

The  fundamental  need  in  a  democracy,  then,  is 
political  education.  The  responsibility  for  State 
policy  in  America  rests,  ultimately,  upon  all  the 
people;  it  will  be  wise  or  foolish,  fair  or  unfair, 
skilful  or  blundering,  in  the  long  run  in  proportion 
to  the  insight  of  the  electorate  on  public  problems. 
The  big  problems  of  public  policy  are  not  beyond 
the  comprehension  of  the  people.  But  they  are  ob- 
scured by  prejudice  and  self-seeking,  by  the  rhetoric 
and  sophistry  of  a  propagandist  press,  by  the  passions 
and  greed  of  groups  accustomed  to  think  in  terms  of 
personal  or  class  advantage.  What  we  need  is  state- 
mindedness,  patriotism,  Americanism — call  it  what 
you  will — the  habit  of  thinking  in  terms  of  the  gen- 
eral good;  and  a  widespread  determination  to  study 
all  problems  from  that  angle.  We  need  so  diffused 
an  education  on  civic  matters  that  the  mass  of  voters 
will  no  longer  be  helpless  in  the  hands  of  political 
bosses,  spellbinder  orators,  and  a  partisan  press.  We 
must  think  for  ourselves,  every  one  of  us ;  in  the  for- 
mation and  utilization  of  an  enlightened  public 
opinion  lies  our  salvation. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  must  not  expect  the  impos- 
sible of  human  nature.  The  great  mass  of  Americans 
are  busy,  hard-working,  people,  with  little  spare  time 
and  energy  to  study  political  situations  and  inform 
themselves  with  regard  to  candidates.  We  must  be- 
ware of  putting  too  heavy  a  burden  upon  them,  for 
in  so  doing  we  shall  defeat  our  end.  We  must  devise 
such  improvements  in  our  political  mechanism  as  will 
make  the  obfustication  of  issues  less  easy,  and  smooth 
the  way  for  the  formation  and  direct  application  to 


POLITICAL  DEMOCRACY  167 

public  policy  of  a  genuine  public  opinion.  Ways  and 
means  to  this  end  will  be  considered  in  succeeding 
chapters. 

SUGGESTED  READINGS 

James  Russell  Lowell,  Address  on  Democracy.     (Reprinted  in 

Fulton,  op.  cit.,  p.  166.) 

Matthew  Arnold,  Democracy,  in  Mixed  Essays. 
J.  H.  Tufts,  Our  Democracy,  Chap.  XXII. 
Maurice    Maeterlinck,    Universal    Suffrage,    in    The    Double 

Garden. 

W.  H.  Allen,  Efficient  Democracy,  Chap.  XI. 
Stanton  Coit,  and  others,  in  Ethical  Democracy. 
J.  A.  Smith,  The  Spirit  of  American  Government. 
W.  E.  Weyl,  The  New  Democracy,  Chap.  XX. 
J.  M.  Mecklin,  Introduction  to  Social  Ethics,  Chap.  I. 
Warner  Fite,  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  102,  p.  611. 
J.  D.  Miller,  in  International  Journal  of  Ethics,  vol.  25,  p.  213. 
R.  B.  Perry,  in  International  Journal  of  Ethics,  vol.  28,  p.  449. 
W.  Fite,  in  International  Journal  of  Ethics,  vol.  18,  p.  1. 
T.  Davidson,  in  International  Journal  of  Ethics,  vol.  10,  p.  21. 
J.  J.  Mackenzie,  in  International  Journal  of  Ethics,  vol.  16, 

p.  129. 
Sylvester  Baxter,  in  Forum,  vol.  52,  p.  313. 


CHAPTER  XVI 

POLITICAL  HONESTY 

A  BRILLIANT  American  student  of  politics,  in  a  book 
published  a  few  years  ago,  writes :  "We  talk  about  the 
evils  of  democracy.  We  have  not  yet  tried  democ- 
racy. Party  or  'interests'  govern  us  with  some  fiction 
of  the  'consent  of  the  governed.' ' 

A  conservative  professor  of  law  in  one  of  our  lead- 
ing universities  declares,  "In  other  forms  of  unpopu- 
lar government  the  central  figure  has  been  the  mon- 
arch, the  autocrat,  the  oligarch,  or  the  aristocrat.  In 
ours  it  is  the  politocrat  (i.e.,  the  boss).  We  have 
avoided  monarchy,  autocracy,  oligarchy,  and  aristoc- 
racy, only  to  find  ourselves  tightly  in  the  grasp  of  a 
politocracy." 

Another  contemporary  writer  has  recently  de- 
clared, "The  name  of  self-government  is  noisy  every- 
where, the  Thing  is  throttled."\ 

A  valuable  work  on  Social  Ethics,  published  in 
1920,  states  this  as  a  truism :  "The  average  American 
prides  himself  upon  his  energy,  his  business  astute- 
ness, his  industrial  efficiency;  but  in  many  ways  his 
civic  stupidity  makes  the  world  stand  aghast." 

These  are  undoubtedly  exaggerated  statements. 
But  they  are  examples  of  a  very  widespread  disgust 
with  politics  in  this  country.  This  is  not  a  new  state 
of  things ;  on  the  contrary,  inefficiency  and  graft  have 
existed  in  our  politics  from  the  beginning.  Charles 
Lee  described  the  Continental  Congress  as  "a  stable 

168 


POLITICAL  HONESTY  169 

of  stupid  cattle  that  stumbled  at  every  step."  It  is 
doubtful  if  standards  are  lower  today  than  formerly. 
But  certainly  they  are  not  as  high  as  our  ideal  of 
Democracy  demands.  We  must  seek  to  discover  the 
causes  of  this  unsatisfactory  situation. 

It  is  obvious  to  any  observer  that  there  is  a  great 
deal  of  ignorance  and  incompetence  in  high  places, 
even  in  such  conspicuous  positions  as  those  of  Con- 
gressmen. In  1917  a  well-known  political  critic, 
writing  in  one  of  our  conservative  weeklies  about  a 
tax  bill  that  had  been  under  discussion  in  Congress, 
said,  "The  House  did  its  part  in  framing  the  bill  with 
a  looseness  and  carelessness  which  were  almost  terri- 
fying to  anyone  who  understood  the  gravity  of  the 
country's  circumstances."  The  chairman  of  the 
committee  that  framed  it  "was,  in  the  field  of  finance, 
an  awkward  child — almost  a  wilful  child,  and  .  .  . 
to  say  it  in  the  only  word  that  is  adequate — igno- 
rant." 

A  man  who  was  for  years  a  leader  in  the  Senate 
recently  made  the  statement  that  by  the  application 
of  proper  business  methods  the  cost  of  conducting 
the  United  States  Government  could  be  reduced 
$300,000,000  a  year.  Other  observers  have  made  other 
estimates;  but  there  is  general  agreement  as  to  the 
existence  of  enormous  waste. 

A  professor  of  politics  in  one  of  our  great  univer- 
sities, writing  in  the  Atlantic  Monthly,  declares  that 
"consideration  of  Congressional  procedure  from  the 
standpoint  of  comparative  politics  causes  a  feeling 
of  blank  amazement  at  the  national  tolerance." 

In  another  important  American  weekly  the  editor 
wrote,  "This  last  session  of  Congress  has  been  an 
ominous  exhibition.  From  first  to  last  it  was  calcu- 
lated to  destroy  all  confidence  in  the  machinery  of 


170  DEMOCRACY 

representative  government.  ...  It  was  garrulous, 
wasteful,  amorphous,  frivolous  and  foolish.  It 
wasted  money  like  a  drunken  sailor  and  time  like  a 
babbling  idiot.  It  could  not  think,  it  would  not 
imagine,  it  could  not  organize,  it  could  not  act." 

Still  another  observer  wrote,  "Among  Americans 
who  have  watched  Congress  closely,  who  have  deal- 
ings with  it  on  any  public  matter,  the  legislature  of 
this  nation  is  cordially  despised.  There  isn't  a  decent 
public  servant  in  Washington  who  doesn't  breathe  a 
sigh  of  relief  when  Congress  adjourns.  There  isn't 
an  official  interested  in  his  work  who  can't  work  bet- 
ter when  Congress  is  gone." 

Mr.  Bryce  described  the  situation  clearly  in  his 
American  Commonwealth,  though  he  was  too  courte- 
ous, in  his  role  of  foreign  critic,  to  put  the  matter  so 
boldly  as  this.  "Congressmen,"  he  wrote,  "are  not 
chosen  from  among  the  best  citizens.  .  .  .  They  do 
not  pretend  to  lead  the  people,  being,  indeed,  seldom 
specifically  qualified  to  do  so." 

,  making  all  allowance  for  the  exaggeration  of 

ese  statements,  the  fact  remains  that,  with  excep- 
,  our  system  does  not  get  the  ablest,  the  best 
trained  men,  the  men  with  deepest  insight  into  public 
problems,  into  Congress.  The  situation  is  even  worse 
in  the  State  legislatures  and  municipal  councils. 
However  we  may  hesitate  to  criticize  our  legislators 
and  officials  in  the  presence  of  foreigners,  we  all 
admit  to  ourselves  that  these  are  usually  not  very 
efficient  bodies,  to  say  the  least.  There  is  a  vast  deal 
of  legislative  blundering;  important  bills  are  held 
up  year  by  year,  or  amended  so  as  to  ruin  their  value, 
and  vicious  bills  are  constantly  passed.  To  point  this 
out  is  the  sheerest  commonplace.  It  is  when  we  come 
to  ask  why  this  is  so  that  we  are  forced  to  realize 


POLITICAL  HONESTY  171 

how  little  most  of  us  understand  the  actual  workings 
of  our  democratic  system. 

Does  the  trouble  lie  in  the  fact  that  the  ablest  and 
most  scrupulous  men  will  not  run  for  office?  Or  is  it 
that  the  people  are  too  ignorant  to  vote  for  the  better 
candidates  whose  names  appear  on  the  ballots?  Or 
is  it  that  the  nominating  machinery  does  not  get  the 
best  men  upon  the  ballots?  The  answer  seems  to  be 
a  partial  yes  to  all  these  questions.  The  best  men 
do  not  usually  run  for  office,  because,  among  other 
reasons,  they  know  that  they  have  small  chance  of 
being  nominated,  or,  if  nominated,  of  being  elected. 
The  nomination  of  candidates  for  public  office, 
whether  it  takes  place  at  conventions  or  at  direct 
primaries,  is  usually  controlled  by  party  organiza- 
tions, and  these  organizations  will  usually  put  up 
only  candidates  whom  they  trust  to  further  the  party 
interests.  Even  if  independent  candidates  are  nomi- 
nated, the  chances  are  that — unless  the  candidate  is 
unusually  conspicuous — a  preponderant  number  of 
voters  will  follow  the  party  standards  and  defeat  the 
independents.  In  short,  our  government  is  a  govern- 
ment, ultimately,  by  party  organizations.  And  these 
organizations — or  the  controlling  element  in  them — 
are  concerned  in  general,  whether  consciously  or  not, 
rather  with  their  own  maintenance  and  advantage 
than  with  the  public  welfare. 

Even  if  there  were  no  parties,  incompetent  men 
would  of  course,  be  put  up  for  office,  and  individual 
dishonesty  would  not  be  absent.  But  actually,  what 
happens  is  that  the  party  leaders  look  first,  usually, 
for  a  candidate  who  will  be  "regular,"  who  will  be 
pliant  to  the  wishes  of  the  Interests  that  support  the 
party,  and  appoint  as  office-holders  deserving  party 
men.  For  this  the  ablest  and  most  scrupulous  men 


172  DEMOCKACY 

are  far  less  likely  to  be  available.  For  some  con- 
spicuous office,  indeed,  a  man  of  fearless  and  inde- 
pendent character  and  of  special  training  may  be 
nominated  by  the  party  leaders.  Owing  to  the  scat- 
tering of  responsibility  in  our  political  system,  such 
a  man  cannot  do  much  to  dislodge  the  party  grip  upon 
power;  and  the  prestige  of  having  such  a  man  in 
office  may  be  a  needed  asset.  But  in  general  it  is  a 
good  party  man  who  is  put  up  and  pushed;  if  he  is 
able,  so  much  the  better;  but  his  party  allegiance  is 
a  sine  qua  non. 

Now  parties  are  inevitable  and  useful  organizations 
in  a  democracy,  to  formulate  principles  and  carry  on 
political  propaganda.  It  is  inevitable,  also,  that  they 
should  try  to  elect  men  who  approve  their  principles 
and  can  be  counted  on  to  further  them.  It  is,  per- 
haps, also  inevitable  that  they  should  degenerate 
largely  into  organizations  for  the  securing  of  office, 
with  principles  a  secondary  consideration.  But  what 
must  be  clearly  realized  is  that,  as  things  are,  it  is 
the  party-organizations  that  get  most  of  our  public 
officials  into  office.  The  incompetence  of  legislators 
and  administrators  is  incompetence  winked  at  by  the 
party-leaders.  The  graft  is  party  graft.  When  pub- 
lic moneys  are  wasted,  it  is  not  that  the  money  is  lost ; 
it  goes  into  the  pockets  of  the  party  bosses,  or  into 
the  pockets  of  people  whom  they  are  depending  upon 
for  help. 

It  is  this  situation  that  makes  "reform"  so  difficult. 
An  independent  free-lance  politician  who  tried  to  get 
his  share  of  graft  would  find  it  a  difficult  matter. 
His  best  chance  would  lie  in  threatening  to  expose 
his  colleagues  if  he  were  not  let  in  on  it.  But  he  could 
be  sure  that  the  party  organizations  would  do  their 
utmost  to  oust  him  from  politics  and  chastise  his 


POLITICAL  HONESTY  173 

sins.  The  vast  preponderance  of  graft  is  collective 
graft.  It  wears  the  camouflage  of  party  policy,  and 
is  connived  at  out  of  party  loyalty  by  many  men  to 
whom  it  has  perhaps  never  occurred  that  it  is  essen- 
tially selfish  and  dishonest.  It  is  the  accepted  game 
in  politics. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  politics  are  probably  no  more 
upt"  than  business.  People  are  in  business 
mostly  for  their  pocketbooks.  A  love  of  wielding 
power  plays  a  large  part  in  both  business  and  poli- 
tics, but  making  money  is  the  main  thing.  The  dis- 
interested public  servants  in  either  are  few.  The 
average  man  accepts  the  situation,  and  takes  his  place 
in  the  game ;  the  man  who  does  not  want  to  play  that 
sort  of  game  keeps  out. 

Thus  when  the  voter  scrutinizes  the  names  of  can- 
didates on  his  ballot,  the  chances  are  that:  first, 
there  are  few  if  any  candidates  who  have  a  more 
idealistic  conception  of  politics,  or  who,  if  they  yearn 
for  it,  do  not  realize  that  they  must  conform  to  the 
general  practice  in  order  to  get  on  at  all;  secondly, 
that  if  there  are  any  such  candidates,  the  voter,  con- 
fused by  the  eulogies  uttered  on  them  all,  or  entirely 
ignorant  of  their  qualifications,  does  not  know  which 
of  them  are  these  abler  and  more  honorable  ones; 
thirdly,  that  if  he  takes  the  pains  to  form  an  intelli- 
gent opinion  on  the  matter  and  vote  for  the  fearless 
independent,  his  candidate  will  be  swamped  by  the 
great  number  of  votes  cast  blindly,  loyally,  in  favor 
of  the  candidates  that  the  party  organizations  trust 
and  back. 

If  any  reader  doubts  this  party  control  of  our  poli- 
tics, let  him  seek  appointment  to  office.  The  recog- 
nized route  is  through  service  to  one  of  the  leading 
party  organizations  and  recognition  by  its  local  boss 


174  DEMOCRACY 

as  a  deserving  party  man.  If  you  are  a  successful 
worker  in  furthering  the  party  cause  and  are  reason- 
ably presentable,  you  may,  if  you  seek  it,  presently 
receive  the  party  nomination  for  some  minor  office. 
You  will  be  opposed  by  a  rival  who  has  been  serving 
the  other  leading  party  organization.  Unless  some 
unusual  situation  arises,  one  of  you  will  win.  If 
then  you  back  the  party  measures,  and  so  far  as  your 
position  allows,  help  get  party  men  upon  the  public 
payrolls,  you  may  be  boosted  to  higher  office.  But  if 
you  oppose  the  will  of  the  party  leaders,  you  will 
receive  no  further  nomination. 

There  are,  of  course,  exceptional  cases.  A  man  of 
remarkable  personality,  like  Roosevelt,  may  win  the 
ear  of  the  public  and  succeed  in  spite  of  the  party 
bosses.  Even  in  his  case,  however,  it  took  a  war  and 
an  assassination  to  lift  him  to  the  presidency.  He 
came  back  from  the  Spanish  War  a  popular  hero. 
He  was  nominated  to  the  Vice-Presidency  by  the 
Republican  party  leaders  in  order  to  shelve  him — 
the  office  being,  in  our  system,  one  of  singular  impo- 
tence. If  McKinley  had  not  been  shot,  the  political 
career  of  even  so  extraordinary  a  man  and  consum- 
mate a  politician  would  probably  have  gone  no  far- 
ther. He  was  renominated  because,  once  in  the 
Presidential  chair,  he  created  a  popular  demand  for 
his  re-election  that  was  irresistible.  But  when,  in 
1912,  the  popular  will  again  demanded  his  nomina- 
tion, the  party  leaders  were  able  to  thwart  it. 
And  the  great  revolt  against  the  control  by  the 
"insiders"  of  the  Republican  party,  although  led  with 
Roosevelt's  customary  enthusiasm  and  skill,  came  in 
the  end  to  nothing. 

In  every  age  and  country  there  have  been  those 
who  have  sought  to  control  the  government  for 


POLITICAL  HONESTY  175 

selfish  ends.  In  the  old  days  the  method  was  crude ; 
a  ruling  class  perpetuated  itself  and  denied  the  peo- 
ple any  share  in  decisions.  Nowadays  a  government 
has  to  be  controlled  in  subtler  ways.  The  main  reli- 
ance of  the  groups  of  people  who  make  it  their  busi- 
ness to  profit  by  controlling  government  is  upon 
party  loyalty.  In  the  name  of  a  great  party  they 
nominate  some  one  who  can  be  trusted  to  work  with 
them;  they  then  eulogize  his  virtues  and  abilities  in 
campaign  speeches  and  personal  conversation;  the 
newspapers  which  are  working  with  them  join  in 
praising  him  and  disparaging  his  rival;  his  election 
is  made  to  seem  a  matter  of  vital  principle;  and  in 
the  general  ignorance  of  his  actual  qualifications,  the 
party  loyalty  so  assiduously  cultivated  can  be  usually 
trusted  to  float  him  into  office. 

The  rewards  of  this  control  of  government  are 
manifold.  Offices  are  distributed  to  party-workers, 
including  purely  sinecure  offices,  for  which  no  work 
to  speak  of  is  done.  Appropriations  are  made  for 
public  improvements,  for  schools,  postoffices,  harbor 
dredging,  or  what  not,  and  contracts  awarded  to 
friends  of  the  party  leaders.  Water-power  fran- 
chises, public  utility  franchises — all  sorts  of  measures 
benefiting  this  set  of  people  or  that  are  passed.  Bills 
which  would  curtail  the  powers  and  privileges  of  this 
or  that  business  are  throttled — not,  however,  until 
the  Interests  threatened  realize  the  danger  they  were 
m.  There  are,  of  course,  all  sorts  of  ways  in  which 
those  who  benefit  by  the  passing  or  knifing  of  these 
bills  reward  their  friends  who  pull  the  wires.  There 
may  be  a  cash  payment  for  services,  there  may  be  an 
election  to  a  valuable  directorate,  there  may  be  a 
purchase  of  property  owned  by  the  deserving  poli- 
tician at  a  handsome  price.  In  some  way  or  other 


176  DEMOCRACY 

we  may  be  sure  that  the  unseen  helmsmen  are 
profited  by  their  labors. 

Volumes  could  be  filled  with  concrete  instances  of 
these  methods.  In  a  certain  city  is  a  house  and  lot 
advertised  for  sale  for  months  at  f  10,000.  The  City 
decides  to  erect  a  school  on  that  lot,  and  pays  f  17,500 
for  it.  We  may  be  sure  that  the  greater  part  of  that 
added  sum  goes  to  the  party  leaders,  perhaps  to  a 
single  boss,  who  was  able  to  dictate  the  necessary 
votes.  Again,  a  new  boulevard,  or  the  widening  of  a 
street,  is  decided  upon.  Some  agents  have  bought  up 
the  lands  along  the  new  avenue,  which  are  going  to 
be  worth  double  their  former  value.  We  may  be  sure 
that  the  party  leaders  are  making  their  profit  there. 
Important  "welfare"  laws  are  blocked  year  after 
year :  a  law  limiting  the  working-day  of  some  workers 
to  ten  or  eight  hours,  a  law  requiring  seats  for  sales- 
girls, a  law  requiring  costly  fire  protective  devices. 
We  may  be  sure  that  there  are  those  who  are  sharing 
the  profits  thus  saved  to  the  employers. 

Some  of  these  methods  are  quite  obviously  and 
cynically  dishonest — as  when  the  agent  of  a  gas  com- 
pany approaches  the  chairman  of  a  legislative  com- 
mittee that  has  framed,  for  this  express  purpose,  a 
gas  bill  which  would  curtail  the  company's  profits, 
and  asks,  "Well,  how  much  do  you  want?"  The  gas 
bill  is  never  reported  out  of  committee ;  it  was  decided 
to  be  inexpedient,  on  grounds,  of  course,  of  public 
policy.  Very  likely  it  was  inexpedient.  ,But  it  could 
have  been  passed,  and  it  was  worth  a  good  deal  to 
the  gas  company  to  keep  it  from  passing. 

Millions  of  dollars  are  collected  in  our  cities  annu- 
ally from  gambling  houses,  "disorderly"  houses,  and 
other  institutions  of  commercialized  vice,  for  "protec- 
tion." Even  many  innocent  people  have  to  pay,  as  a 


POLITICAL  HONESTY  1T7 

price  of  not  being  persecuted,  subjected  to  annoy- 
ances, or  refused  privileges  really  their  due. 

But  these  cruder  forms  of  bribery  and  blackmail 
are  a  small  part  of  the  story.  More  often  the  direc- 
tion given  to  legislation  seems  intrinsically  desirable 
to  the  party  men.  It  is  really  too  bad  to  compel  a 
department  store  owner  to  put  in  seats  for  his  sales- 
girls; they  would  sit  down  and  be  lazy  when  they 
ought  to  be  on  the  alert  for  customers.  To  be  sure, 
the  store  owner  advertises  largely  in  certain  news- 
papers, and  these  newspapers  boost  the  party  leaders 
in  question.  If  the  bill  to  require  seats  were  to  be 
passed,  the  store  owner  would  withdraw  his  full-page 
advertisements  from  these  newspapers,  and  the  news- 
papers would  discover  that  the  party  leaders  in  ques- 
tion were  unworthy  of  support.  Perhaps,  indeed, 
one  of  the  party  bosses  owns  the  newspaper.  More 
likely  the  newspaper  owner  has  some  direct  or  indi- 
rect way  of  rewarding  him.  The  quid  pro  quo  game 
has  infinite  ramifications.  Eeformers  speak  of  "log- 
rolling," and  the  "pork-barrel,"  or  use  goodness 
knows  what  other  disparaging  terms.  But  to  the 
people  in  the  game  it  is  not  dishonesty,  it  is  just — 
the  way  the  game  is  played.  If  you  can  get  people 
with  money  or  influence  to  do  favors  for  you  in  return 
for  your  favors  for  them,  you  are  no  more  dishonest 
than  the  average  business  man.  Politics  is  business ; 
and  business  exists  for  personal  profits. 

The  result  of  it  is,  however,  that  "big  business" 
pretty  generally  has  its  way,  because  it  can  afford 
to  pay  for  it.  As  Governor  Hughes  of  New  York  said 
in  1912,  "There  is  a  constant  effort  by  special  Inter- 
ests to  shape  or  defeat  legislation,  to  seek  privileges 
and  to  obtain  favors  in  the  administrative  depart- 
ments." And  that  effort  is  pretty  generally  success- 


178  DEMOCEACY 

ful.  There  are  always  reasons  discoverable  for  oppos- 
ing or  pushing  bills,  apart  from  the  really  controlling 
motives.  Many  a  politician,  being  "in  with"  the 
Interests  in  question,  sincerely  believes  it  to  be  his 
duty  to  protect  them  from  inadvisable  legislation. 
The  fact  that  he  receives  a  splendid  "legal  fee"  for  his 
advice — or  a  stock-exchange  tip — or  a  nomination  for 
a  higher  office — or  a  complimentary  wrrite-up — or 
social  recognition  for  his  wife — or  what  not — is  sim- 
ply the  due  reward  of  his  political  soundness.  He 
has  the  business  prosperity  of  this  great  nation  at 
heart. 

So,  vitally  important  bills  are  defeated  year  after 
year.  Special  Interests  fatten,  Privilege  is  undis- 
turbed, Profiteering  goes  on  uncurbed,  local  constitu- 
encies are  favored  at  the  general  expense,  vast  sums 
of  public  money  flow  into  the  pockets  opened  to  re- 
ceive it,  incompetent  "party  men"  sit  in  our  legisla- 
tive halls,  untrained  men  grapple  with  complex 
administrative  problems,  able  men  are  defeated  for 
office  because  they  are  not  subservient  to  the  party 
organization. 

/  It  is  not  really  quite  so  bad  as  all  this !  Even  party 
bosses  may  have  some  sort  of  conscience;  and  the 
average  politician  is  not  a  bad  fellow.  Other  motives 
than  the  selfish  ones  enter  in  to  mitigate  the  sordid 
scramble.  Moreover,  bosses  fall  out  with  one  an- 
other sometimes,  to  the  profit  of  the  public.  But  the 
fact  remains  that  the  welfare  of  the  people  is  con- 
stantly thwarted,  and  a  great  deal  is  done  that  has  no 
popular  will  behind  it.  Or  if  the  popular  approval 
exists,  it  is  because  it  has  been  created  by  the  Inter- 
ests, the  politicians,  and  the  newspapers  who  are 
working  hand  in  hand  for  their  common  profit.  This 
is  the  "Invisible  Government,"  the  "machines,"  the 


POLITICAL  HONESTY  179 

"rings,"  whose  dominance  in  our  public  affairs  is 
matter  of  common  knowledge.  They  work  by  under- 
hand methods,  methods  which,  though  usually  not 
recognized  as  such  by  those  who  use  them,  are  funda- 
mentally dishonest. 

Mr.  Elihu  Root,  in  his  farewell  address  to  the  New 
York  Constitutional  Convention  in  1915,  said,  "We 
,found  that  .  .  .  the  majority  of  the  legislators  were 
^/occupying  themselves  chiefly  in  the  promotion  of 
I  private  and  local  bills,  of  special  interests  .  .  .  upon 
/  which  apparently  their  re-elections  to  their  positions 
depended."  The  situation  there  was  thoroughly 
typical.  Our  rulers  are  elected  by  the  people;  but 
to  a  large  extent  they  do  not  represent  the  people. 
They  do  not,  primarily,  owe  their  election  to  the 
people,  but  to  the  "machine"  that  brought  about  their 
nomination.  And  to  the  dictates  of  those  party  lead- 
ers, rather  than  to  the  popular  will,  they  are,  for  the 
most  part,  loyal.  They  forward  the  Interests  which 
their  party  is  backing.  They  dare  not — often  they 
are  convinced  they  ought  not — to  deviate  from  the 
party  policy,  on  matters  where  the  party  demands 
their  allegiance. 

Can  we  then  hope  to  purge  the  party  machines  of 
self-seeking  and  graft?  Or  can  we  hope  to  launch  a 
new  party  whose  leaders  will  maintain  a  more  ideal- 
istic and  disinterested  attitude?  Or  can  we  devise 
a  plan  whereby  the  sovereign  people  will  be  more 
independent  of  party  control  and  able  oftener  to  elect 
men  of  expert  qualification  for  office  and  a  genuine 
public-mindedness?  One  of  these  things  must  be 
done  if  we  are  to  justify  the  faith  of  our  fathers  in 
democracy.  There  is  no  problem  more  pressing  for 
this  generation.  Democracy  is  still  on  trial.  As  the 
writer  quoted  at  the  opening  of  this  chapter  con- 


180  DEMOCRACY 

eludes,  "With  the  inclusion  of  all  men  and  women  in 
the  suffrage,  with  the  rapidly  increasing  acceptance 
of  direct  government,  the  extensive  work  of  the  demo- 
cratic impulse  has  ended.  Now  the  intensive  work 
of  democracy  must  begin." 

SUGGESTED  READINGS 

Theodore  Roosevelt,  American  Ideals,  Chapters  III- VI;  The 
New  Nationalism,  Chapters  on  The  Crook,  and  Corruption. 

H.  G.  Wells,  The  Future  in  America,  Chap.  VIII. 

R.  C.  Brooks,  Corruption  in  American  Politics  and  Life. 

Lincoln  Steffens,  The  Shame  of  the  Cities;  The  Struggle  for 
Self -Government. 

W.  E.  Weyl,  The  New  Democracy,  Chap.  VIII,  X. 

A.  T.  Hadley,  Standards  of  Public  Morality,  Chapters  IV,  V. 

Edmond  Kelly,  Evolution  and  Effort,  Chap.  IX. 

Durant  Drake,  Problems  of  Conduct,  Chap.  XXIV. 

James  Bryce,  The  Hindrances  to  Good  Government. 

C.  R.  Henderson,  The  Social  Spirit  in  America,  Chap.  XI. 

Graham  Wallas,  Human  Nature  in  Politics. 

H.  George,  Jr.,  The  Menace  of  Privilege,  Book  VI. 

Walter  Lippmann,  A  Preface  to  Politics. 

A.  M.  Kales,  Unpopular  Government  in  the  United  States. 

C.  C.  P.  Clark,  The  Machine  Abolished. 


CHAPTER  XVIII 

REPRESENTATIVE   GOVERNMENT 

.OUR  problem  is,  to  make  government  truly  repre- 
Jteentative  of  the  interests  of  the  people  as  a  whole, 
*  instead  of,  as  it  too  largely  is  today,  representative 
of  the  interests  of  the  party  bosses  and  the  business 
organizations  that  can  afford  to  give  money  and 
energy  to  influencing  legislation.  It  is  possible  that 
by  a  more  efficiently  socialized  education  we  might 
bring  up  a  generation  far  more  public-spirited  than 
the  present,  and  so  raise  the  average  level  of  con- 
science in  politicians.  Religious  revivals,  patriotic 
appeals — something  may  touch  the  hearts  of  bosses 
here  and  there  and  bring  them  to  quit  the  game.  But 
when  a  politician  becomes  too  disinterested  he  will 
find  the  highly  organized  forces  of  the  machine 
against  him.  And  when  one  boss  gets  converted  an- 
other will  be  ready  to  step  into  his  shoes.  The  system 
has  become  self -perpetuating ;  and  nothing  is  likely 
to  uproot  it  short  of  such  changes  in  our  political 
system  as  will  make  it  cease  to  be  a  profitable  means 
of  livelihood. 

Certainly  the  history  of  reform  movements  in  this 
country  is  very  discouraging.  Nearly  all  of  our  big 
cities  are  ruled,  practically,  by  a  Democratic  or  a 
Republican  machine,  or  a  working-agreement  of  the 
two.  A  wave  of  popular  disgust,  the  exposure  of  some 
particularly  flagrant  case  of  graft,  the  nomination  by 
a  temporary  independent  organization  of  some  con- 

181 


182  DEMOCRACY 

spicuously  able  and  honest  man,  may  lead  to  his 
election  and  a  few  years  of  relatively  efficient  and 
honest  government.  But  the  reform  administration 
will  inevitably  be  hampered  from  within  and  without 
by  the  "regulars"  who  do  not  want  it  to  succeed.  And 
at  the  next  election,  when  the  popular  attention  has 
lapsed,  the  machine  will  quietly  come  back  into 
power. 

Reformers  are  never  tired  of  telling  us  that  it  is 
our  fault,  that  we  have  the  kind  of  government  we 
vote  for,  that  we  must  take  more  interest  in  politics, 
learn  the  qualifications  and  past  record  of  candidates, 
and  vote  more  intelligently. 

"  'Why  don't  they  keep  the  streets  a  little  cleaner  ?' 
You  ask  with  keen  annoyance,  not  undue. 
'Why  don't  they  keep  the  parks  a  little  greener?' 
(Did  you  ever  stop  to  think  that  'they'  means  you?") 

But  as  a  matter  of  fact,  these  appeals  are  nearly 
futile.  The  way  by  which  you  and  I  can  hope  to 
reform  politics  is  too  arduous  and  discouraging.  We 
have  other  things  to  do.  The  bosses  can  give  their 
whole  time  to  politics,  it  is  their  business ;  the  chances 
are  they  will  circumvent  us.  No  political  system  will 
work  well  which  necessitates  for  its  success  too  much 
work  or  presupposes  too  much  intelligence  on  the  part 
of  the  electorate.  We  must  adjust  political  duties  to 
human  nature,  and  not  expect  too  much  of  people. 

\  One  great  and  permanent  gain  has  been  made  in 
V  recent  years,  the  erection  and  extension  of  the  Civil 

/ -\Service.  This  means  that  for  thousands  of  subordi- 
nate offices  a  man  may  no  longer  be  appointed  simply 
because  he  is  a  friend  or  supporter  of  the  leaders  of 
the  dominant  party.  He  must  show  by  passing  a 
standard  examination  that  he  has  the  training  and 


REPRESENTATIVE  GOVERNMENT  183 

abilities  requisite  to  the  duties  of  the  position. 
Fitness,  not  party  allegiance,  is  the  criterion  of  selec- 
tion. This  deprives  the  party  bosses  in  so  far  of  their 
hold  upon  their  supporters.  It  also  raises  the  level 
of  efficiency  in  the  service,  saves  the  country  millions 
of  dollars,  and  attracts  able  young  men  to  govern- 
ment positions.  They  no  longer  need  to  fear  dis- 
missal when  another  party  comes  into  power.  Their 
pride  in  their  wrork  is  thereby  increased,  and  their 
loyalty  is  given  to  the  service  itself  rather  than  to 
their  party.  There  is  less  personal  dishonesty  and 
slacking;  as  President  Alderman  of  the  University 
of  Virginia  says,  "You  can  trust  men  if  you  will 
train  them." 

The  principle  of  the  Civil  Service  should  be  ex- 
tended to  many  positions  not  yet  included.  Instead 
of  the  easy-going  assumption  that  anybody  can  fill 
any  office,  we  must  aim  to  have  all  public  duties  per- 
formed by  experts,  trained  for  their  particular  work, 
and  proving  their  fitness  by  examination.  Congress- 
men, instead  of  wasting  a  large  part  of  their  time,  as 
they  now  do,  in  making  petty  appointments  and  ap- 
portioning the  party  spoils,  can  then  give  their  full 
attention  to  matters  of  public  policy.  Except  for  the 
highest  positions,  the  party  convictions  of  an  official 
have  no  bearing  upon  the  efficiency  of  his  work,  and 
should  be  disregarded. 

It  would  be/ximpossible,  however,  to  extend  this 
principle  to/legislators  and  the  highest  executive 
offices,  because  in  their  case  it  is  not  merely  efficiency 
and  expert  Knowledge  that  is  required,  but  convic- 
tions and  principles  which  are  to  determine  their 
policy.  These  principles  must  be  such  as  to  com- 
mend them  to  the  people  whom  they  are  to  represent. 
Moreover,  in  these  responsible  positions  the  factor 


184  DEMOCRACY 

of  personality  enters  in,  which  cannot  be  adequately 
tested  by  an  examination.  It  might,  indeed,  be  an 
excellent  thing  if  candidates  for  Congress,  as  well  as 
for  State  and  municipal  office,  were  required  to  take 
standard  psychological  and  information  tests,  and 
the  results  published,  as  part  of  the  data  bearing 
upon  the  voters'  decision.  But  examinations  alone 
can  never  show  to  the  people  who  can  best  serve  them 
in  those  positions  that  require  important  decisions. 
Those  representatives  must  be  chosen  not  only  for 
their  ability  but  because  they  can  be  depended  upon 
to  represent  faithfully  the  needs  and  wishes  of  their 
constituents. 

If  it  were  only  a  matter  of  expressing  the  ideas  of 
the  people,  we  might  replace  representative  govern- 
ment to  considerable  extent  by  direct  legislation,  such 
as  has  bcome  increasingly  popular  in  several  States 
of  the  Union.  The  movement  toward  direct  legisla- 
tion— the  Initiative  and  Referendum — is  a  natural 
consequence  of  the  thwarting  of  the  popular  will  by 
the  party  machine.  But  it  cannot  succeed  to  any 
great  extent  in  breaking  the  power  of  the  machine; 
and  it  implies  the  renunciation  of  the  ideal  of  expert- 
ness  in  government.  Legislation  should  embody  not 
only  what  the  people  think  will  be  for  their  interests, 
but  what  trained  students  of  public  policy  decide, 
after  mutual  discussion  and  investigation,  to  be  for 
their  interests.  / 

Direct  legislation  does  have  the  advantage  of 
giving  the  voters  a  chance  to  express  their  will  on  a 
specific  issue,-  disentangling  it  from  the  jumble  of 
issues  which  Complicate  any  election  of  representa- 
tives. And  it  may  have  an  educative  value  not  to  be 
despised.  But  it  is  too  much  to  expect  the  mass  of 
voters  to  become  competent  to  decide  most  questions 


REPRESENTATIVE  GOVERNMENT  185 

of  public  policy ;  they  are  too  intricate,  they  require 
expert  knowledge  and  study.  Legislators  are  elected 
for  the  express  purpose  of  deliberating  and  studying 
out  the  best  solution  of  such  problems.  A  popular 
verdict  will  usually  be  a  snap  judgment,  based  chiefly 
upon  superficial  newspaper  arguments,  the  speeches 
of  clever  orators,  or  sectional  interests  and  preju- 
dices. The  party  organizations  have  the  advantage 
in  creating  these  prejudices  and  misunderstandings; 
the  newspapers  are  controlled  by  definite  Interests. 
Thus  direct  legislation  can  be  used  by  party  machines 
to  thwart  a  too  public-spirited  legislature  as  well  as 
by  an  aroused  public  to  thwart  a  party-dominated 
legislature. 

The  people  should  be  able  to  elect  to  the  highest 
offices  the  men  they  trust  and  honor — as  they  very 
often  can  not  today.  They  should  decide,  by  the  choice 
of  their  representatives,  the  big  questions  of  public 
policy.  If  their  representatives  are  thus  men  whom 
they  trust  and  honor,  men  who  represent  their  general 
attitudes  toward  public  policy,  they  should,  in  gen- 
eral, leave  to  their  more  deliberately  formed  opinion 
the  decisions  as  to  ways  and  means.  This  certainly 
is  the  ideal  of  traditional  Americanism.  Direct  inter- 
position by  the  people  should,  perhaps,  be  available 
for  exceptional  cases.  But  it  should  be  employed 
with  caution.  If  we  can  but  make  our  representatives 
truly  representative  it  will  seldom  be  necessary  to 
resort  to  these  heroic  measures. 

The  Recall,  likewise,  is  a  double-edged  and  danger- 
ous weapon.  When  there  appears  a  wave  of  popular 
indignation  at  some  office-holder,  because  of  the  dis- 
closure of  his  dishonesty  or  treason  to  the  interests 
of  the  people,  the  Recall  may  be  used  to  salutary 
effect.  But  we  are  so  used  to  bad  government  that 


186  DEMOCRACY 

such  waves  of  effective  indignation  are  rare.  And  the 
Eecall,  if  it  is  available  at  all,  can  be  instituted  by  the 
party  machine  as  well  as  by  reformers.  The  machine 
organization  can  reach  the  ears  of  many  voters; 
selfish  advantage  and  blind  party  loyalty  can  always 
command  for  it  many  votes.  And  a  campaign  of 
slander  and  vilification  can,  at  least  temporarily, 
arouse  masses  of  suggestible  voters  against  the  hap- 
less victim  of  party  ostracism.  The  Recall  need  not 
be  often  used,  but  it  can  be  held  as  a  threat  over  the 
heads  of  party  members  to  keep  them  in  line.  Hence 
it  is  desirable  that — at  least  as  long  as  office-seeking 
party  organizations  dominate  our  politics — the  Recall 
should,  if  available  at  all,  be  so  restricted  and  hedged 
about  with  conditions  that  it  cannot  be  used  to 
intimidate  independent  and  honest  officials.  If  we 
devise  a  surer  plan  of  getting  the  best  men  into  office, 
it  will  seldom  be  needed. 

The  crux  of  the  problem  of  democracy  is,  how  to 
get  the  right  men  into  office.  The  voters  cannot  judge 
fairly  of  the  qualifications  of  candidates  for  office,  in  » 
any  case,  unless  they  are  conspicuous^ leaders  with 
easily  ascertainable  records,  or  unless  they  are  elected 
from  so  small  a  constituency  that  most  of  the  voters 
know  them  personally.  Moreover,  the  number  of 
offices  to  which  election  musf  be  made  is  usually  so 
great  that  the  voter  has  neither  time  nor  energy  to 
ferret  out  their  past  record,  study  their  character,  and 
make  a  reasonable  decision  as  to  which  of  the  can- 
didates offered  is  the  best  for  each  office.  rJhe  result 
is,  as  we  all  know,  that  we  go  to  the  voting-booth 
'  idea  of  why  we  should  vote  for  this  man 
few  leading  offices,  and  for  the  rest  we 
*he  nominees  of  the  party-organization  with 
^bave,  for  one  reason  or  other,  affiliated  our- 


187 

selves.  We  may  knife  the  party  nominee  for 
Governor  or  Mayor,  but  we  tamely  follow  the  party 
lead  in  nine  cases  out  of  ten.  What  else  is  there  for 
us  to  do?  Hence  the  party-bosses  go  on  putting  up 
second-  and  third-rate  men  for  these  offices,  men  whom 
they  can  count  on  as  tools  for  their  ends.  And  we  are 
helpless. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  for  State  and  municipal  offices 
it  usually  matters  very  little,  if  at  all,  that  a  candidate 
belongs  to  the  ^Republican  or  Democratic  or  some 
other  party,  because  the  issues  that  divide  these 
parties  refer  to  matters  of  national  policy,  and  have 
nothing  to  do  with  efficiency  in  State  and  local 
government.  It  is  quite  feasible,  then,  to  remove  the 
party  emblems  and  designations  from  the  ballot  or 
voting-machine,  and  to  vote  for  these  candidates 
simply  as  individuals  of  such  and  such  a  record  and 
character,  making  such  and  such  promises.  Inde- 
pendent candidates  would  thereby  be  encouraged  to 
put  their  names  up  for  election  (there  are  ways  of 
discouraging  candidates  who  would  have  no  chance 
of  elecKon),  and  it  would  become  common,  perhaps, 
to  have  a  really  excellent  candidate  for  every  office 
rather  than  a  mere  choice  between  third-rate  men, 
as  now  so  often  happens, 

But  the  insuperable  obstacle  of  our  ignorance 
would  still  intervene.  How  should  we  know  which 
of  the-  candidates  for  all  these  offices  were  really 
worthy?'  In  our  distraction  we  should,  in  most  cases, 
either  net  vote  at  all,  or  vote  more  or  less  hit  or  miss, 
or  fall  back  upon  a  slate  recommended  by  our  party. 

One  method  of  correcting  our  ignoran- 1  and  Mind 
party  loyalty  is  the  publication  of  a  pamphlet  u  > 
non-partisan  organization  run  by  men  of  sti  i 

the  community,  summarizing  the  qualificar 


188  DEMOCRACY 

candidates.  But  if  the  number  of  candidates  is  large, 
it  is  doubtful  if  a  sufficient  number  of  voters  can  be 
got  to  study  up  and  remember  their  qualifications, 
even  when  thus  compactly  presented.  Moreover, 
such  a  statement,  to  be  truly  non-partisan,  must  con- 
fine itself  to  facts,  and  cannot  fill  in  the  picture  with 
the  appraisal  which  is  necessary  to  truly  guide  the 
voter.  The  statement  of  the  past  record  of  a  candi- 
date will  mean  little  to  a  voter  who  has  not  been 
conscientiously  following  the  course  of  government 
in  his  State  and  city.  And  a  man's  legislative  expert- 
ness  can  often  not  be  expressed  in  terms  of  the  fact 
that  he  introduced  this  bill,  voted  for  that,  against 
this  other,  and  so  on.  Administrative  efficiency  is 
even  harder  to  describe  in  impartial  terms;  and  so 
closely  are  the  duties  of  various  offices  interwoven 
that  it  is  impossible  to  present  except  in  terms  of 
personal  judgment  the  expertness  and  energy  of  the 
various  officials. 

There  is  only  one  way  out  of  this  situation.  We 
must  not  be  asked  to  vote  for  so  many  people.  Our 
forefathers  were  so  afraid  of  autocracy  that  they 
planned  to  have  almost  all  offices  filled  by  popular 
election.  This  was  feasible  under  the  conditions  of 
a  small  and  simple  society.  But  with  our  great 
increase  in  population  this  plan  of  having  many 
elective  offices  defeats  its  own  end.  What  we  should 
aim  for  now  is  to  have  only  the  most  important 
officials  chosen  by  popular  vote,  leaving  to  them  the 
appointment  of  their  subordinates.  In  this  way  the 
ballot  to  be  presented  to  the  voter  will  contain  the 
names  of  the  candidates  for  but  one  or  two,  at  most 
not  more  than  four  or  five  offices.  The  voter  will 
concentrate  his  attention  on  the  candidates  for  these 
conspicuous  offices,  the  newspapers  will  discuss  them, 


/• 


REPRESENTATIVE  GOVERNMENT  189 

and  their  qualifications  for  office  will  be  readily 
ascertainable.  With  this  spotlight  turned  on  the 
small  group  of  candidates,  the  party  organizations 
will  discover  the  necessity  of  nominating  men  whose 
qualifications  will  bear  inspection.  And  if  indepen- 
dent candidates  are  put  up,  there  is  considerable 
likelihood,  if  they  are  clearly  superior  to  the  machine 
candidates,  that  they  will  be  elected. 

That  this  shortening  of  the  ballot  is  the  imperious 
necessity  in  our  political  system  today  is  the  judg- 
ment of  most  impartial  students.  Ex-President 
Eliot  of  Harvard  has  spoken  of  it  as  "absolutely  the 
gist  of  all  constructive  reform."  Mr.  Albert  Kales, 
professor  of  law  in  Northwestern  University,  con- 
cludes a  valuable  book  on  politics  with  the  emphatic 
declaration  that  the  three  words  "The  Short  Ballot" 
are  "the  emancipation  proclamation  for  our  govern- 
ment," expressing  the  need  which  is,  of  all  our  present 
political  needs,  the  most  pressing. 

This  plan  has  several  great  advantages  besides  that 
of  evoking  a  much  wiser  vote  than  is  now  obtained. 
For  one  thing,  it  concentrates  responsibility.  Our 
present  plan  of  electing  many  officials  divides  govern- 
mental powers  in  such  a  way  that  the  responsibility 
for  bad  government  can  be  easily  evaded.  All  sorts 
of  State  and  municipal  officers  divide  up  administra- 
tive functions ;  because  they  are  elected  by  the  people, 
the  Governor  or  Mayor  cannot  be  blamed  for  their 
inefficiency.  Often  jurisdictions  and  duties  overlap; 
often  there  is  friction  between  different  arms  of  the 
Government.  Deadlocks  often  arise,  the  difficulty  of 
passing  and  executing  legislation  becomes  great,  and 
the  public  finds  it  impossible  to  ascertain  who  really 
is  to  blame.  This  situation  creates,  of  course,  a  happy 
hunting-ground  for  the  machine  politician. 


190  DEMOCRACY 

It  is  a  mistake  to  think  that  as  little  power  as 
possible  should  be  given  to  any  one  official.  On  the 
contrary,  where,  for  example,  a  small  body  of  com- 
missioners is  elected  to  manage  all  the  affairs  of  a 
city,  these  few  men  can  be  held  directly  responsible 
for  everything  that  is  done.  If  one  commissioner  is 
chosen  from  each  of  several  sections  of  the  city,  the 
voter  will  have  but  one  official  to  elect.  He  will 
concentrate  his  attention  upon  this  one  choice;  and 
if  the  candidate  he  elects  does  not  fulfil  his  wishes, 
it  will  be  because  of  the  conflicting  policy  of  the  few 
other  men  on  the  Council.  Their  votes  can  be  fol- 
lowed in  detail,  and  a  close  watch  kept  upon  their 
administration.  All  the  other  municipal  officials  not 
appointed  through  the  Civil  Service  will  be  their 
appointees,  and  the  responsibility  for  their  conduct 
will  be  theirs.  As  there  will  be  frequent  re-elections 
to  this  municipal  Council,  there  will  be  comparatively 
little  danger  of  autocratic  or  fundamentally  dishonest 
government.  Detection  and  location  of  responsibility 
are  too  certain,  and  the  mechanism  of  changing  the 
Government  too  easy. 

In  the  national  election  the  \oter  yill  have  to 
decide,  at  most,  upon  his  choice  foKPjresident,  Vice- 
President,  Senator,  and  Represented!^.  No  other 

officials  should  be  elected  at  the  a^me  tuae,  so  that 

~ 

his  attention  may  be  concentrated  upon  the  candi- 
dates for  these  high  offices.  The  President  appoints 
his  Cabinet  officers,  and  is  responsible  for  their  con- 
duct and  for  that  of  their  appointees.  Similarly, 
when  the  State  election  takes  place,  the  voter  should 
be  called  upon  to  vote  only  for  Governor,  Lieutenant 
Governor,  and  Representative — with  the  addition  of 
State  Senator  if  the  State  legislature  is  bi-cameral. 
The  other  State  officers  should  be  appointed  by  the 


191 

Governor.  It  may  be  that  we  shall  ultimately  merge 
the  executive  and  legislative  branches  in  our  State 
governments,  as  we  have  done  so  successfully  in  many 
of  our  municipal  governments,  electing  a  Commission 
to  have  complete  control  of  all  State  business.  But 
whatever  the  exact  form  of  government,  the  most 
important  point  to  bear  in  mind  is — the  election  of 
few  officials  and  the  concentration  of  responsibility 
upon  their  shoulder^ 

Government  by  a,s)MSfl  Council  or  Commission  is 
the  ideal  form  ofxgoverntoaent.  One-man  government 
is  bound  to  be^foo  highly  colored  by  a  single  point  of 
view;  the  mutual  deliberation  of  several  minds,  the 
reaction  upon  one  another's  ideas,  the  correction  of 
one  another's  idiosyncrasies,  leads  to  a  greater 
wisdom.  But  our  government  has  more  often 
suffered  from  too  wide  a  diffusion  of  power.  As 
Lord  Bryce  wrote,  in  The  American  Commonwealth, 
"There  is  in  the  American  government,  considered  as 
a  whole,  a  want  of  unity.  The  branches  are  uncon- 
nected and  their  efforts  are  not  directed  to  one  aim, 
do  not  produce  one  harmonious  result."  The  plan 
of  concentrated  responsibility  here  urged  will  correct 
this  generally  recognized  fault  in  our  political 
mechanism.  Our  Government  will  still  be  as  demo- 
cratic ;  the  appointees  of  our  few  elected  officials  are 
actually  more  likely  to  represent  the  interests  of  the 
people  than  those  who,  under  our  present  complicated 
and  confusing  plan,  are  nominated  by  party  leaders 
and  blindly  elected  by  the  voters. 

The  City  Manager  plan  has  proved  to  be  the  best 
political  mechanism  yet  devised  in  this  country.  A 
small  City  Council  is  elected  by  popular  vote.  This 
Council  appoints  an  expert  administrator — the  City 
Manager,  he  is  usually  called — to  take  complete 


192  DEMOCRACY 

charge  of  the  municipal  business.  The  members  of 
the  Council  are  men  whom  the  voters  trust,  but  not 
necessarily  experts  in  the  profession  of  running  a 
city  government.  Nor  could  the  voters  be  trusted  to 
judge  of  the  qualifications  of  candidates  for  this 
skilled  vocation.  But  by  this  indirect  method,  city 
administration  can  be  made  an  expert  profession. 
A  young  man  may  enter  it  as  he  would  enter  the  law, 
or  medicine;  he  may  offer  his  services  first  to  some 
small  town,  and  work  his  way  up  to  the  administra- 
tion of  a  great  city.  This  will  not  be  possible  until 
we  take  city  government  "out  of  politics,"  that  is.  out 
of  party  control.  But  a  non-partisan,  small  city 
Council,  entrusted  with  the  entire  responsibility  for 
the  City's  welfare,  and  closely  watched  by  the  elec- 
torate,, will  have  every  possible  incentive  for  seeing 
to  it  that  the  City's  business  is  efficiently  done. 

Such  a  City  Manager  finds  it  to  his  advantage  to 
satisfy  the  citizens  as  a  whole — not  a  particular 
party  or  section.  His  continuance  in  office,  and  his 
whole  future  career,  depend  upon  the  reputation  he 
makes.  If  he  makes  good,  a  change  in  the  personnel 
of  the  Council  will  not  necessarily  remove  him  from 
office;  there  is  more  likelihood  of  stability  of  govern- 
ment under  this  than  under  any  other  form  of  demo- 
cratic government. 

Similar  plans  of  delegated  government  are  appli- 
cable to  State  and  National  affairs.  Appointed  offi- 
cials and  commissions  should  do  a  great  deal  of  the 
expert  work  that  is  now  handled  by  elected  officials. 
The  elected  officials  are  responsible  to  the  people,  and 
will  therefore  keep  a  sharp  eye  upon  their  appointees. 
But  they  need  not  make  politics  their  vocation,  and 
may  retain  their  regular  professions.  In  this  way 


KEPKESENTATIVE  GOVEKNMENT  193 

the  ablest  and  best  known  citizens  can  accept  these 
high  offices,  decide  upon  the  best  available  trained 
experts  to  call  in  to  carry  on  the  various  functions 
of  government,  without  themselves  having  to  devote 
their  time  to  becoming  expert  in  those  manifold 
duties.  We  can  thus  have  specialization  of  function, 
and  expert  service,  combined  with  quick  responsive- 
ness, through  the  elective  Council  or  Executive,  to 
the  popular  will. 

Coupled  with  this  mechanism  of  indirect  govern- 
ment and  concentrated  responsibility,  we  should 
elaborate  a  plan  for  a  greater  participation  of  the 
people  in  public  discussion.  These  open  forums 
should  not  be  party  affairs,  or  confined  to  occupa- 
tional groups,  because  we  should  then  have  a  parti 
pris,  a  one-sided  point  of  view.  We  do  not  want  more 
meetings  to  defend  a  party  dogma,  to  whip  people 
into  line  with  a  platform.  We  want  meetings  of 
people  with  varying  views,  for  the  purpose  of  mutual 
understanding,  the  clarification  of  ideas,  and  their 
integration,  through  reciprocal  suggestion,  into  some- 
thing more  nearly  representing  a  Common  Will. 
Neighborhood  units,  not  so  large  as  to  be  unwieldy, 
but  large  enough  to  bring  together  men  and  women 
of  diverse  convictions  and  experiences,  and  to  evoke 
leadership,  make  the  best  political  groups.  Such 
groups,  meeting  periodically  for  discussion  of  public 
questions,  would  produce  a  public  opinion  in  far 
greater  degree  than  now  independent  of  the  manipu- 
lated party-opinion  and  the  manipulated  newspaper- 
opinion  now  so  overwhelmingly  dominant. 

Perhaps  eventually  we  shall  use  such  Neighbor- 
hood Groups  as  electoral  units,  and  send  a  represen- 
tative from  each  one — some  one  who  is  personally 


194  DEMOCRACY 

known  and  approved  by  the  group,  and  has  shown  the 
qualities  of  leadership  therein — to  our  elective  Coun- 
cil. At  any  rate,  we  must  not  be  afraid  of  trying 
new  methods.  Our  politics  have  got  into  a  rut.  The 
system  perhaps  once  adequate  needs  revision  in  the 
light  of  contemporary  experience.  The  revision  must 
always  be  for  the  purpose  of  realizing  our  traditional 
ideals.  But  it  is  those  ideals,  not  the  particular 
ways  and  means  that  our  fathers  devised,  that  are 
sacred.  Washington  himself  criticized  the  Constitu- 
tion sharply,  finding  in  it  "a  host  of  vices  and  inex- 
pediencies." We  must  be  as  critical  in  our  attitude — 
not  destructively  but  constructively  critical. 

Once  and  for  all,  we  must  give  up  our  complacent 
reliance  upon  exhortation  to  the  electorate  and  abuse 
of  the  politicians.  Human  nature  will  continue  to 
be  human  nature ;  we  must  utilize  it  as  it  is.  Instead 
of  abortive  or  purely  transient  attempts  to  "purify" 
politics,  we  must  put  into  operation  methods  that  are 
practicable  and  that  do  not  so  readily  lend  them- 
selves to  anti-social  practices.  The  devotion  of  the 
youth  of  the  land  is  needed  to  evolve  a  system  of 
representative  government  of  which  we  may  properly 
be  proud. 

SUGGESTED  READINGS 

James  Bryce,  The  American  Commonwealth. 
W.  H.  Taft,  Four  Aspects  of  Civic  Duty. 
Elihu  Root,  The  Citizen's  Part  in  Government. 

D.  F.  Wilcox,  Government  ~by  all  the  People. 

C.  R.  Henderson,  The  Social  Spirit  in  America,  Chap.  XI. 
H.  G.  Wells,  Social  Forces  in  England  and  America,  p.  293,  ff. 
M.  P.  Follett,  The  New  State. 
R.  S.  Childs,  Short  Ballot  Principles. 

E.  S.  Bradford,  Commission  Government  in  American  Cities. 
W.  B.  Munroe,  The  Government  of  American  Cities. 

C.  E.  Rightor,  City  Manager  in  Dayton. 


REPRESENTATIVE  GOVERNMENT  195 

Charles   Zueblin,   American  Municipal  Progress,  revised   ed., 

Chap.  XX. 

Evans  Woolen,  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  110,  p.  41. 
J.  Bourne,  Jr.,  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  109,  pp.  122,  429. 
J.  N.  Larned,  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  112,  p.  610. 
H.  A.  Overstreet,  Forum,  vol.  54,  p.  6. 


CHAPTER  XVIII 

DEMOCRACY  IN  JOURNALISM 

WE  HAVE  been  considering  how,  in  our  democracy, 
public  opinion  can  get  itself  faithfully  represented 
and  its  dictates  expertly  carried  out.  But  behind 
that  problem  lies  the  problem  of  how  a  well-informed 
and  wise  public  opinion<^en-fe^uigcated.  Open-forum 
meetings  for  free  discussa-oSof  contemporary  affairs 
might  be  of  great  v^Wie.  But  these  meetings  would 
be  held  only  at  intervals,  whereas  the  newspapers  are 
read  daily.  Whether  or  not  their  readers  realize  that 
their  views  are  being  formed  by  the  papers  they  read, 
it  is  to  a  very  great  degree  the  fact.  Americans  read 
their  newspapers  more  than  the  people  of  any  other 
nation.  Hence  it  is  of  the  utmost  importance  that 
the  news  furnished  in  the  daily  press  be  accurate  and 
impartial,  reporting  every  event  of  importance  and 
reporting  it  uncolored  by  the  bias  of  the  newspaper- 
owners.  If  one  set  of  facts  is  ignored  and  another 
set  of  facts  emphasized  or  exaggerated,  public  opinion 
is  in  so  far  misled,  and  its  resulting  judgments 
warped. 

The  importance  of  a^-free  and  impartial  press  was 
recognized  by  our  fatfierg.  The  Virginia  Declaration 
of  Rights,  of  June  2,  1776,  declared  that  "freedom  of 
the  press  is  one  of  the  great  bulwarks  of  liberty." 
No  more  fearlessly  honest  journal  than  Benjamin 
Franklin's  Gazette  was  ever  published.  In  general, 

196 


DEMOCEACY  IN  JOUKNALISM  197 

a  newspaper  was  published  to  furnish  the  news;  and 
editors  were  given  a  free  hand. 

In  recent  years,  however,  the  situation  has  been 
seriously  altered.  Practically  aM#f  the  great  papers 
of  the  country  are  now  owned/JbyWen  of  wealth.  A 
few  rich  and  ambitious  men  control  a  good  many  of 
them.  It  is  not  impossible  that  any  year  might  see 
one  or  two  men  in  absolute  control  of  hundreds  of 
our  leading  organs  of  public  opinion.  Lord  North- 
cliffe  in  England  is  the  controlling  shareholder  of  a 
great  trust  which  owns  some  sixty  publications. 
Herr  Stinnes  in  Germany  was  reported  recently  to 
have  bought  up  sixty-four  papers  to  push  his  propa- 
ganda. With  the  strong  forces  making  for  central- 
ization and  combination  in  American  business,  it  is 
surprising  that  no  greater  mergers  have  been  made  as 
yet  in  this  field.  Possibly  there  is  already  more  cen- 
tralization of  control  than  is  made  public.  At  any 
rate,  we  have  Mr.  Hearst,  with  his  many  newspapers 
and  magazines,  and  certain  other  fairly  large-scale 
manipulators  of  opinion. 

Then  we  have  the  Associated  Press,  which  has  al- 
most a  monopoly  of  the  news-gathering  service.  The 
Manager  of  this  agency  is  said  to  have  remarked  re- 
cently that  he  was  more  powerful  than  the  President 
of  the  United  States.  If  his  censorship  of  the  news 
is  as  autocratic  and  as  drastic  as  is  commonly  re- 
ported, that  remark  may  well  be  true.  He  who  can 
select  the  news  upon  which  millions  of  readers  are 
to  be  fed  every  day  has  an  enormous,  if  unseen,  in- 
fluence upon  the  creation  of  the  popular  will.  A  few 
rich  newspapers  can  afford  to  maintain  their  own 
special  correspondents.  But  the  great  majority  of 
them  are  almost  wholly  dependent,  and  all  are  very 
largely  dependent,  upon  the  despatches  which  the 


198  DEMOCKACY 

Associated  Press  correspondents  send  and  the  Asso- 
ciated Press  office  allows  to  get  by. 

Any  one  who  knows  the  newspaper  business  from 
the  inside  knows  that  most  newspapers  are  very  auto- 
cratically run.  The  editors  and  reporters  know  what 
topics  must  be  avoided,  what  news  hushed  up,  what 
men  and  movements  must  be  given  no  publicity.  They 
know,  on  the  other  hand,  the  individuals  and  the  cor- 
porations, the  events  and  movements,  which  are  to  be 
written  up.  Not  only  are  the  editorials  thoroughly 
partisan — that  we  expect,  and  discount — but  the  news 
itself  is  editorialized.  The  headlines  emphasize  what 
the  policy  of  the  paper  intends  to  thrust  upon  the 
attention  of  the  readers.  The  position,  prominent  or 
out-of-the-way,  given  to  an  article,  the  manner  of  the 
write-up,  the  excisions  and  emphases,  all  work  to  the 
same  end.  The  result  is  that,  to  an  extent  not  realized 
as  yet  by  most  readers,  our  newspapers  have  become 
organs  of  propaganda  rather  than  impartial  records 
of  fact. 

The  motives  behind  this  warping  of  the  news  are 
not  difficult  to  understand.  In  the  first  place,  a  news- 
paper is  a  money-making  enterprise,  like  any  other 
business;  the  owner  knows  his,  public,  and,  other 
things  equal,  wishes  to  print  the  sort  of  thing  that 
will  sell  the  greatest  number  of  copies.  What  this 
will  be,  depends  upon  the  particular  clientele  of  the 
paper;  Mr.  Hearst's  papers  pander  to  the  poorer 
classes,  while  the  Boston  Transcript  must  please  its 
Back  Bay  buyers.  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore, 
that  we  find  the  former  papers  portraying  financial 
magnates  as  brutal  profiteers,  and  headlining  every 
scandal  affecting  big  business,  whereas  the  latter 
harps  upon  the  unreasonableness  of  labor  and  its 
grafting  leaders. 


DEMOCRACY  IN  JOURNALISM  199 

But  our  newspapers  do  not  live  on  the  money  paid 
for  copies,  they  live  on  the  money  paid  in  by  adver- 
tisers. Over  two-thirds  of  the  total  receipts  of  the 
average  newspaper  today  come  from  advertising;  in 
some  cases  the  proportion  is  said  to  run  as  high  as 
ninety  per  cent.  It  is  obvious,  therefore,  that  to  incur 
the  displeasure  of  the  big  advertisers  would  mean 
financial  ruin.  The  loss  of  the  department-store  ad- 
vertising alone  might  well  make  just  the  difference 
between  success  and  bankruptcy.  Naturally,  then, 
scandals  that  involve  their  owners  must  not  be  pub- 
lished, conditions  in  the  stores  reflecting  upon  the 
management  must  be  ignored,  legislation  whose  effect 
would  be  to  involve  the  owners  in  expense  must 
not  be  advocated,  or  must  perhaps  be  vigorously  op- 
posed. 

There  are  many  other  ways  in  which  a  newspaper 
can  serve  the  financial  interests  of  its  owner.  For 
example,  if,  as  is  the  case  with  at  least  one  of  our 
great  newspaper-owners,  he  is  the  possessor  of  rich 
oil-lands  in  Mexico,  he  will  be  likely  to  advocate  in 
his  paper  a  "strong"  policy  toward  that  unhappy 
country.  Headlines  and  sensational  reports  will  em- 
phasize the  unsettled  condition  of  policies  there,  every 
case  of  injury  to  Americans  or  their  property  will  be 
exploited;  and  in  all  sorts  of  indirect  ways  the  im- 
pression will  be  spread  that  intervention  is  necessary 
and  righteous. 

If  the  owner  of  the  paper  has  invested  heavily  in 
steel,  he  will  naturally  hush  up  any  news  that  reflects 
upon  the  conduct  of  that  great  industry.  He  will  op- 
pose agitation  tending  toward  the  raising  of  wages  or 
shortening  of  hours  for  the  laborers,  lest  dividends  de- 
crease. If  there  is  a  strike,  the  paper  will  be  full  of 
indignation  at  the  labor-unions,  and  give  space  to 


200  DEMOCRACY 

every  item  of  news  and  every  rumor  that  will  dis- 
credit the  strikers  in  the  eyes  of  the  public. 

These  are  not  mere  hypotheses.  This  is  just  the 
sort  of  thing  that  is  going  on  continually.  Usually 
the  reader  knows  nothing  about  the  owner  of  the 
paper  he  reads — what  his  particular  interests  are, 
and  the  interests  of  his  friends.  If  he  is  naive,  he  lets 
his  mind  absorb  the  attitude  of  the  paper;  if  he  is 
worldly-wise,  he  becomes  cynical  with  regard  to  every- 
thing he  reads.  But  even  the  most  cynical  reader, 
unless  he  is  continually  on  his  guard,  will  be  in- 
fluenced unconsciously  by  the  subtle  "suggestion"  of 
the  "stories"  in  the  paper. 

Of  course,  mosf*pa^eas_a.re  partisan  when  it  comes 
to  poises.  Even  the  -independent"  papers  are  not 
impartial;  they  simply  reserve  the  right  to  change 
sides  when  platforms  or  candidates  present  a  new  is- 
sue. A  Democratic  paper  fills  its  readers'  minds 
with  "news"  and  editorials  that  show  the  worthiness 
of  its  cause;  a  republican  paper  has  no  difficulty  in 
finding  news  that  points  to  the  necessity  of  a  Repub- 
lican administration,  and  its  editorials  would  move 
the  hardest-hearted  to  the  conviction  that  the  true 
patriot  will  vote  that  ticket.  Since  the  Democrats 
read  their  papers  and  the  Eepublicans  theirs  (few 
people  read  more  than  one  daily  paper),  every  one  is 
strengthened  daily  in  his  own  convictions.  Of  dis- 
passionate search  for  truth  and  presentation  of  all 
sides  of  a  question  there  is  hardly  a  sign. 

Political  issues  change  from  decade  to  decade,  can- 
didates come  and  go.  And  it  often  makes  little 
enough  difference  in  the  end  which  party  won  at  the 
polls.  But  there  is  something  of  far  deeper  import 
than  the  alignment  between  the  two  traditional 
parties.  It  is  the  fact  that  almost  all  of  the  daily 


DEMOCRACY  IN  JOURNALISM  201 

papers  of  the  country,  except  a  few  labor  and  socialist 
papers,  which  have  few  readers  outside  their  own 
particular  clientele,  represent  the  "upper  class"  point 
of  view.  Their  presentation  of  that  point  of  view 
may  be  interrupted  now  and  then  by  the  "human 
interests"  of  a  story;  as  when  the  misery  of  strikers' 
families  is  played  up,  or  some  scandal  affecting  the 
employers.  The  desire  to  get  a  "beat,"  together  with 
some  measure  of  natural  human  sympathy,  and  all 
sorts  of  other  motives,  enter  in.  And  of  course  there 
is  no  one  homogeneous  "upper  class  point  of  view"; 
there  are  all  sorts  of  conflicting  ideas,  jealousies,  dis- 
putes, all  of  them  more  or  less  represented  in  the 
press.  But  the  underlying  fact  remains  that  year  in 
and  year  out  the  daily  press  of  the  country  reflects 
the  point  of  view,  the  judgments  and  desires,  of  the 
wealthy  class.  Because  of  the  power  of  the  press, 
that  general  point  of  view  has  an  influence  upon 
affairs  far  out  of  proportion  to  the  numbers  or  intel- 
lectual ability  of  this  class. 

Perhaps  we  think  that  this  point  of  view  of  the 
wealthy  class  is  the  right  point  of  view,  and  so  re- 
joice in  its  grip  upon  the  organs  that  form  public 
opinion.  But  this  is  not  the  democratic  ideal.  That 
ideal  was  not  the  ideal  of  a  class-government,  but  of 
a  government  by  the  people.  The  idea  of  a  free  press 
was  the  idea  of  a  press  that  should  freely  represent 
the  ideas  of  all  classes  of  the  people.  It  has  become 
increasingly  clear  that  this  ideal  cannot  be  attained 
merely  by  a  laissez-faire  policy  on  the  part  of  the 
Government.  Every  one  is  free  to  publish  a  paper,  if 
he  chooses,  and  to  say  what  he  wills ;  the  Government 
will  not  interfere — except  during  a  war,  or  while  the 
war-psychology  lasts.  But  it  has  become  the  case 
that  to  publish  a  paper  requires  a  great  deal  of 


202  DEMOCRACY 

capital;  and  it  is  impossible  to  make  a  paper  finan- 
cially successful  if  the  great  financial  interests  dis- 
approve its  policy.  In  the  older  sense,  we  have  a 
"free  press."  But  that  sort  of  freedom  is  not  enough. 
Practically,  a  great  deal  of  opinion  gets  very  inade- 
quately represented  in  the  press;  a  great  many  facts 
of  importance  are  exaggerated,  played  up,  colored, 
twisted,  so  that  a  false  impression  results.  Most  peo- 
ple who  would  like  to  get  their  facts  before  the  public 
are  not  really  free  to  do  so,  because  they  cannot 
afford  to. 

We  must  not  suppose  that  there  is  any  conspiracy 
here,  or  even  a  universal  scramble  for  money,  regard- 
less of  ideals.  The  "upper-class"  people  who  run 
our  newspapers  are,  for  the  most  part,  average  hu- 
man beings  morally,  as  well  as  above  the  average  in- 
tellectually. Many  of  them  have  personal  ambitions, 
of  one  sort  or  other,  to  serve,  and  all  of  them  are 
bound  to  make  their  papers  pay  a  good  return  on  the 
investment.  But  a  very  large  part  of  the  bias  of  their 
papers  is  the  natural  expression  of  sincere  convictions 
on  their  part.  A  man  who  has  a  thousand  shares  of 
steel  is  likely  to  believe  with  all  his  heart  that  trade- 
unions  are  vicious,  and  that  excess-profits-taxes  are 
inexpedient.  A  strike  even  in  a  textile-mill  in  which 
he  has  no  financial  interest  is  apt  to  arouse  his  honest 
condemnation.  We  are  all  prejudiced,  though  we 
would  all  resent  the  accusation. 

The  radical  press,  thevSocialist  and  labor  papers, 
are  just  as  prejudiced  as  the  more  widely  read  dailies. 
Their  prejudices  are,  indeed,  Vore  conscious  and  more 
obvious,  and  for  that  reason  less  subtly  dangerous; 
they  are  avowedly  pa»fisan  organs.  In  any  case, 
their  circle  of  readers  is  comparatively  small.  And  if 
the  big  dailies  were  trustworthy  venders  of  news, 


DEMOCRACY  IN  JOURNALISM  203 

their  readers  would  be  still  fewer.  The  real  problem, 
then,  is  with  these  big  metropolitan  newspapers  which 
purport  to  be  colorless  media  for  the  transmission  of 
news  but  are  actually  controlled  and  colored  by  the 
policy  of  their  upper-class  owners. 

What  is  wrong,  let  us  repeat,  about  this  class-con- 
trol of  the  press  is  not  that  this  particular  class  is 
worse  than  other  classes.  If  the  rich  are,  on  the 
whole,  over-complacent  with  things  as  they  are,  and 
over-callous  to  the  wrongs  of  the  poor,  the  poor,  on 
their  part,  are  apt  to  be  bitter  and  unintelligent. 
No  other  class  of  people  would  run  the  papers  better, 
perhaps.  What  is  wrong  is  that  any  class  should  have 
such  monopoly-control. 

The  harm  done  by  our  profit-seeking  journalism  is 
of  many  sorts.  There  is,  for  one  thing,  the  sensation- 
alism of  the  "yellow"  press — the  sickening  succession 
of  murders,  suicides,  divorces,  scandals,  crimes,  and 
gossip  with  which  the  papers  that  cater  to  the  less 
educated  are  filled.  These  stories  appeal  to  deep- 
rooted  human  intincts;  and  the  strength  of  the  in- 
stincts grows  by  feeding.  It  is  not  socially  expe- 
dient that  men  and  women,  boys  and  girls,  should 
live  on  this  diet.  But  the  papers  that  exploit  all  this 
human  vice  and  passion  sell  well.  It  is  very  doubtful 
if  a  democratic  control  of  journalism  would  tolerate 
this;  a  people  that  has  voted  to  deny  itself  alcoholic 
drinks  could  rather  easily  be  aroused  to  the  moral 
harmfulness  of  this  daily  flaunting  of  the  cruelty  and 
sensuality  in  men.  But  while  a  few  private  owners 
have  autocratic  control  of  these  yellow  papers,  we 
are  helpless. 

A  far  less  obvious,  but  in  the  end  perhaps  more  seri- 
ous, evil  is  the  constant  reflection  on  the  part  of 
nearly  all  of  our  "respectable"  papers,  of  the  common 


204  DEMOCKACY 

and  accepted  ideas  of  the  time.  A  newspaper  cannot 
hope  to  succeed,  against  well-established  rivals,  if  it 
champions  unpopular  opinions.  We  are  in  desperate 
need  of  new  ideas  and  ideals,  or  at  least  of  new 
applications  of  old  ideals.  But  to  break  away  from 
established  respectabilities  would  mean  severe  criti- 
cism ;  and  newspapers  can  not  afford  to  run  that  risk. 
They  can  choose  between  a  Republican  or  Democratic 
policy;  occasionally,  when  some  great  popular  revolt 
takes  place,  such  as  the  Populist  or  Progressive  move- 
ments, they  may  swing  with  the  tide.  But  in  general 
they  must  cling  to  familiar  and  safe  ideas.  This 
means  the  stereotyping  of  opinion.  It  means  an  un- 
fair advantage  to  the  conservatives  and  stand-patters 
— and,  consequently,  the  increase  of  unrest  and  un- 
derground revolutionary  propaganda.  If  the  Ameri- 
can press  were  more  hospitable  to  minority  views, 
gave  space  to  accounts  of  meetings  and  addresses 
representing  the  newer  movments  of  thought,  instead 
of,  as  is  now  commonly  the  case,  either  ignoring  or 
misrepresenting  and  ridiculing  them,  we  should  be 
less  in  danger  of  mental  stagnation  among  the  upper 
classes,  with  class-consciousness  and  bitterness  on 
the  part  of  those  who  find  it  so  difficult  to  get  the  ear 
of  the  public. 

The  respectable  point  of  view,  which  the  news- 
papers instinctively  represent,  usually  rests  upon 
some  deep-rooted  human  instinct.  For  instance,  the 
instinct  of  patriotism,  together  with  the  combative 
instinct,  ensures  the  popularity  of  a  paper  which 
adopts  a  jingoistic  tone.  The  responsibility  for 
arousing  a  war-fever  rests  largely  upon  the  shoulders 
of  the  newspaper-owners.  If  the  war  is,  indeed,  a 
necessary  one,  they  can  be  thus  of  enormous  service. 
But  if  the  war  would  be  an  unnecessary  and  un- 


DEMOCRACY  IN  JOURNALISM  205 

righteous  one,  there  will  still  be  many  papers  to  rattle 
the  sword  and  insist  upon  the  satisfaction  of  our  na- 
tional honor.  As  this  is  written,  a  few  of  our  dailies 
are  apparently  trying  to  stir  up  war  with  Mexico, 
with  Japan,  with  Great  Britain.  Facts  are  twisted, 
or  even  invented  outright ;  mere  rumors  are  headlined, 
the  country  in  question  is  pictured  as  seeking  to  out- 
wit us,  as  infringing  our  rights,  as  preparing  secretly 
for  war  with  us.  The  worst  sort  of  nationalistic 
spirit  is  thus  kept  inflamed;  and  statesmen  who  are 
trying  to  preserve  amicable  relations  between  our 
country  and  these  others  are  seriously  handicapped. 
What  the  owner's  motive  is,  must  be  inferred.  It  may 
be  a  desire  to  further  the  value  of  his  investments ;  it 
may  be  a  knowledge  that  he  could  become  a  war- 
profiteer;  it  may  be  a  desire  to  influence  the  stock- 
market;  it  may  be  a  mere  desire  to  sell  more  papers 
by  appealing  to  the  wide-spread  jingoistic  instinct ;  it 
may  be  a  native  and  honest  truculence  of  tempera- 
ment ;  it  may  be  any  one  of  a  number  of  other  things. 
Whatever  the  motive,  or  combination  of  motives,  this 
power  which  a  few  men  have  of  inciting  popular  pas- 
sions is  extremely  dangerous. 

Of  course  American  newspapers  have  been  strongly 
opposed,  as  the  American  people  have  been,  to  the 
Soviet  Government  in  Kussia.  The  constant  stream 
of  editorial  comment  on  Russia  has  naturally,  and 
legitimately,  been  unfavorable — though,  even  here, 
justice  and  the  ideal  of  free  speech  demand  that  those 
who  have  something  good  to  report,  or  some  plea  for 
approval  to  make,  with  regard  to  this  or  any  other 
movement,  should  have  ample  opportunity  to  do  so. 
But  the  fact  is  that  the  press  in  general  has  done  more 
than  oppose  that  movement  editorially,  it  has  persist- 
ently misrepresented  the  facts.  Ever  since  the  first 


206  DEMOCRACY 

months  of  the  Communist  regime  the  public  has  been 
led  to  believe  that  it  was  on  the  verge  of  falling.  One 
after  another  of  the  anti-Bolshevist  leaders  was  re- 
ported as  about  to  win  his  campaign.  Day  after  day, 
the  news  as  reported  in  the  American  press  was  col- 
ored by  the  hopes  or  policy  of  the  correspondents,  or 
of  the  managers  of  the  Associated  Press,  or  of  tne 
newspaper-owners,  or  of  all  together.  How  much 
conscious  suppression  and  distortion  of  the  news 
there  was,  an  outsider  can  not  judge.  To  a  large  ex- 
tent, no  doubt,  all  of  these  people  were  gulled  by  their 
hopes.  But  the  point  is,  that  there  were  other  news- 
gatherers  in  the  field  who  had  other  reports  to  make, 
which  time  proved  to  be  more  accurate.  These  report- 
ers had  no  way  of  getting  their  news  and  their  prog- 
nostications before  the  public. 

Now  this  it  not  in  the  least  an  argument  for  Bol- 
shevism. Bolshevism  is  obviously  quite  alien  to 
Americanism.  The  point  is,  that  however  we  dislike 
Bolshevism,  we  ought  to  be  able  to  get  the  truth  about 
it  from  our  newspapers.  At  least,  we  ought  not  to  be 
so  steadily  and  persistently  misled  as  we  have  been. 
Time  after  time,  the  reports  and  prophecies  of  our 
greatest  newspapers  turned  out  to  be  mistaken.  This 
means  that  with  respect  to  one  of  the  most  critical 
events  going  on  in  the  contemporary  world,  the 
American  people  could  not  get  correct  information. 

This  instance  has  been  specifically  cited,  because  a 
very  searching  non-partisan  investigation  was  made 
of  the  distortion  of  news  of  the  Russian  situation,  and 
the  facts  are  easily  accessible.  But  a  similar  un- 
trustworthiness  could  be  shown  to  exist  in  the  report- 
ing of  many  matters  where  strong  feelings  and  vital 
interests  are  involved. 

It  may  be  that  much  of  the  trouble  resides  in  the 


DEMOCRACY  IN  JOURNALISM  207 

lack  of  adequate  training  of  reporters  and  correspond- 
ents. But  if  the  newspaper  owners  demanded  ac- 
curacy and  impartiality,  "the  truth,  the  whole  truth, 
and  nothing  but  the  truth,"  they  could  certainly  come 
much  nearer  to  getting  it.  We  must  not  be  surprised 
that  many  people  today  are  speaking  of  the  "kept 
press."  Not  only  the  socialists  and  agitators,  but 
many  people  of  very  respectable  views.  It  would  be 
easy  to  quote  page  after  page  of  the  most  vigorous 
indictments  from  the  pens  of  ex-newspaper  men.  It 
is  easy  to  get  greatly  excited  over  the  unfairness  and 
unreliability  of  our  most  efficient  and  honored  news- 
papers. It  is  more  to  the  point  to  ask,  what  can  be 
done  about  it? 

The  main  trouble  obviously  lies  in  the  fact  that  the 
control  of  our  press  is  highly  autocratic.  A  more 
democratic  control  would  serve  at  least  to  correct  the 
bias  and  neutralize  the  selfish  interest  of  the  present 
owners.  If  the  newspaper  men  themselves,  the  editors 
and  reporters,  were  allowed  to  determine  the  policy 
of  the  paper,  with  regard  to  news  and  editorials,  we 
should  doubtless  fare  better  than  we  do.  But  after 
all,  a  comparatively  small  group  of  men  would  still 
have  a  dangerous  power.  The  public  as  a  whole  must 
reserve  the  right  to  ultimate  control  of  that  great 
public  institution,  the  Press.  It  is  as  important,  in 
its  way,  as  the  public  schools.  The  only  ultimate 
solution  can  be  a  Press  which  is,  by  law,  made  omni- 
partisan.  Its  columns  must  be  open  to  reports  of 
facts  and  expressions  of  opinion  from  every  stratum 
of  public  opinion. 

One  way  to  attain  this  democratic  ideal  would  be 
to  require  that  a  certain  number  of  columns  should  be 
at  the  disposal  of  each  of  the  national  parties,  and 
perhaps  of  other  important  groups,  such  as  employ- 


208  DEMOCKACY 

ers'  associations,  the  trade-unions,  an  association  of 
college-graduates,  etc.  These  columns  must  be  un- 
censored  by  the  newspaper  owner  or  editor.  In  this 
way  facts  and  opinions  that  seem  important  to  any 
respectable  group  could  be  got  fairly  before  the  pub- 
lic, and  every  newspaper  would  become,  instead  of  a 
more  or  less  unrecognized  organ  of  private  opinion 
and  selected  news,  a  real  open  forum  for  discussion  of 
contemporary  affairs,  a  way  by  which  the  members 
of  a  democracy  may  talk  to  one  another  and  learn  of 
everything  important  that  is  being  done  and  said. 

There  are  various\p$s  in  which  the  impartiality 
of  the  Press  could >e  secured;  there  is  no  space  here 
to  discuss  their  relative  advantages.  Every  reform, 
however,  must  recognize  that  titf?)Press  is  an  institu- 
tion of  public  service.  Its  potentialities  for  the  educa- 
tion of  the  people  are  almost  limitless.  It  could  be 
used  to  create  an  intelligent  democracy,  by  voicing  the 
various  existing  opinions  upon  every  problem  and 
noting  accurately  all  relevant  facts.  If  this  ideal 
can  be  attained  under  the  individualistic  system  of 
private  ownership,  well  and  good.  But  if  the  owners 
of  the  Press  and  of  the  great  newsgathering  agencies 
persist  in  using  their  power  irresponsibly,  for  the 
furthering  of  their  own  particular  views  and  interests, 
the  public  will  find  a  way  to  limit  or  end  that  power. 
A  "free  press"  must  be  taken  to  mean  not  a  press  that 
any  one  who  can  afford  to  can  buy  and  run  as  he 
chooses,  but  a  press  free  from  dictation  at  the 
hands  of  any  interest,  free  to  serve  the  people  as  a 
whole.  Nothing  short  of  that  will  realize  our  ideal 
of  Democracy  in  journalism. 


DEMOCRACY  IN  JOURNALISM  209 

SUGGESTED  READINGS 

Theodore  Eoosevelt,  The  New  Nationalism':  The  Public  Press, 

Henry  Holt,  Commercialism  and  Journalism, 

W.  E.  Weyl,  The  New  Democracy,  Chap.  IX. 

Walter  Lippmann,  Liberty  and  the  News, 

O.  G.  Villard,  Press  Tendencies  and  Dangers. 

Upton  Sinclair,  The  Brass  Check. 

D.  Dibblee,  The  Newspaper. 

J.  E.  Kogers,  The  American  Newspaper. 

E.  A.  Ross,  Changing  America,  Chap.  VII. 

Henry  George,  Jr.,  The  Menace  of  Privilege,  Book  VII. 
G.  H.  Payne,  History  of  Journalism  in  the  United  States. 
"Lysis",  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  121,  p.  815. 
C.  H.  Grasty,  in.  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  124,  p.  577. 


CHAPTER  XIX 

DEMOCRACY  IN  INDUSTRY 

^r 

THE  ideal  of  Democracy  demands  that  every  adult 
human  being  should  have  ip' voice  in  every  decision 
that  directly  affects  his  welfare.  Toward  this  ideal 
the  impulses  that  we  may  group  together  under  the 
term  "The  American  spirit"  have  been  pushing  us. 
But  powerful  forces  have  been  blocking  the  way.  The 
discovery  that  politics  can  be  made  to  yield  a  sub- 
stantial livelihood  to  the  "insiders"  has  gone  far 
toward  thwarting  the  popular  will  and  nullifying  the 
achievement  of  political  democracy.  The  discovery 
that  the  Press  can  be  bought  up  by  a  few  people  and 
used  to  push  their  personal  and  class  interests,  and 
the  causes  in  which  they  believe,  has  gone  far  toward 
robbing  the  people  of  a  Press  really  free  to  tell  the 
whole  truth  and  to  express  all  shades  of  opinion. 

But  the  Ballot  and  the  Press  are,  after  all,  pri- 
marily means  to  an  end — the  control  by  the  people, 
for  the  people's  good,  of  the  conditions  of  their  life. 
And  there  is  a  discovery  that  has  done  more  to 
thwart  democracy  than  either  of  the  two  we  have  men- 
tioned— the  discovery  that  industry  and  commerce 
can  be  largely  bought  up  and  controlled,  in  their  own 
interest,  by  a  comparatively  few  rich  men.  So  Big 
Business  has  arisen,  feudal  in  its  conception ;  a  great 
mechanism  whereby  a  small  class  of  men  have,  within 
certain  legal  limits,  complete  dictation  over  the  main 
activities  of  the  country  and  the  conditions  amid 

210 


DEMOCRACY  IN  INDUSTKY  211 

which  the  masses  of  men  and  women  must  work  and 
live.  These  conditions  are,  as  we  saw  in  earlier 
chapters,  often  such  as  to  take  the  heart  out  of  the 
workers,  and  to  wear  out  their  lives.  They  may  be 
remedied,  one  by  one,  by  piecemeal  legislation  forced 
upon  the  owners  of  industry.  But  the  fundamental 
reason  for  their  existence  is  that  the  big  industries  are 
autocratically  controlled.  If  those  who  suffer  from 
these  evils  were  to  have  direct  voice  with  regard  to 
them,  they  would  quickly  be  mended. 

When  the  great  economists  of  an  earlier  day  advo- 
cated the  laissez-faire  policy  in  business,  they  saw 
in  that  policy  an  opportunity  of  escape  from  a  tyran- 
nous state.  They  did  not  realize  that  it  would  result 
in  "the  exploitation  of  the  economically  weak  by  the 
economically  strong,  and  the  increase  among  the 
masses  of  that  hopeless  form  of  poverty  which  we  call 
industrial  poverty."  But  this  has  been  the  actual 
result  of  a  system  based  upon  the  principle 

'*Let  him  take  who  hath  the  power, 
And  let  him  keep  who  can." 

There  are  many  employers  who  treat  their  employees 
kindly ;  there  are  some  classes  of  employees  better  off 
in  the  conditions  and  rewards  of  their  work  than  some 
employers.  But  because  the  despotism  is  at  times 
a  benevolent  one,  it  is  none  the  less  a  despotic  system, 
far  from  the  ideal  of  a  true  democracy. 

Our  worMng  life  is,  for  most  of  us,  far  the  most  im- 
portant paryof  our  life.  And  yet  the  tardiness  of  our 
application  of  the  democratic  principle  to  industry  is 
easily  explicable  when  we  remember  the  very  recent 
growth  of  the  power  of  capit^dism.  The  founders  of 
our  republic  were  independent  farmers  and  artisans, 
or  professional  men,  or  in  business  on  such  a  small 


212  DEMOCKACY 

scale  that  they  could  know  their  hired  helpers  per- 
sonally. The  rise  of  the  great  soulless  corporations 
is  a  matter  almost  of  yesterday ;  the  power  of  organ- 
ized wealth  is  a  new  power  in  America.  We  have 
hardly  had  time  to  realize  the  momentous  change  that 
has  quietly  been  taking  place  in  our  institutions, 
and  making  Democracy  for  masses  of  people  little 
more  than  a  name. 

A  large  proportion  of  our  people  are  still  independ- 
ent workers,  controlling  their  own  hours  and  condi- 
tions of  work.  But  an  increasing  proportion  have 
become  simply  "hands" — a  labor  commodity,  to  be 
bought  as  cheaply  as  possible,  and  used  for  the  mak- 
ing of  profits  for  the  owners  of  the  mine  or  factory 
or  mill  or  business  house.  The  impersonal  nature  of 
the  corporation  tends  to  make  it  heartless.  It  exists 
to  "get  results" ;  in  many  cases  the  owners  know  little 
of  the  conditions  under  which  the  laborers  work  or 
the  scale  upon  which  they  are  paid.  The  result  is  that 
it  takes  years  of  effort  and  the  bitterest  struggles  to 
win  for  many  of  the  workers  even  the  minimum  decen- 
cies of  life. 

The  rest  of  us  suffer  too,  not  only  indirectly,  as 
from  the  danger  of  the  disease-  and  vice-breeding 
slums  in  which  underpaid  laborers  are  forced  to  live, 
but  directly,  through  the  indifference  of  powerful 
money-making  corporations  to  the  public  interest.  It 
took  many  years  of  struggle  to  get  our  pure  food 
laws,  our  meat  inspection  laws,  our  safety  device 
laws,  and  the  like.  We  still  find  ourselves  helpless 
when  some  corporation  or  group  of  corporations  de- 
cide to  stop  production  in  order  to  create  a  relative 
scarcity  and  raise  the  price  of  their  product.  If  the 
move  is  skillfully  executed,  a  few  owners  may  make 
a  considerable  profit.  In  the  meantime  thousands 


DEMOCRACY  IN  INDUSTRY  213 

of  families  suffer  privation  for  want  of  work,  and  the 
public  has  to  pay  a  quite  unnecessary  price  for  what 
it  buys.  A  speculator  corners  the  ice  supply  in  sum- 
mer ;  we  all  pay  high  prices  for  ice ;  in  the  poorer 
homes  the  babies  die;  a  few  men  make  handsome 
profits. 

Perhaps  the  bulk  of  our  business  is  carried  on  with 
a  reasonable  degree  of  public  spirit  and  fairness.  The 
opportunities  for  exploitation  are  checked  not  only 
by  the  inertia  of  those  who  do  not  realize  their  oppor- 
tunities, and  by  human  kindliness  or  public  spirit  that 
refuses  to  seize  them,  but  also  by  the  pressure  of  pub- 
lic opinion,  by  the  competition  of  rivals,  by  the  power 
of  organized  labor,  and  by  various  other  forces.  Still, 
benevolent  as  for  the  most  part  our  Big  Business  may 
be,  it  can  not  be  called  democratic.  And  the  argu- 
ments for  democracy  that  we  discussed  in  Chapter 
XV  apply  nowhere  more  forcibly  than  to  this  situa- 
tion. It  is  not  right  for  any  single  individual  or  small 
group  of  men  to  have  such  power  over  the  lives  of 
masses  of  men  as  the  rulers  of  our  large-scale  indus- 
tries and  business-houses  have.  Our  forefathers  did 
not  foresee  this  situation  when  they  expounded  the 
ideal  of  Democracy;  it  is  for  us  to  apply  their  ideal 
to  present-day  conditions. 

Does  this  mean  Socialism?  Not  at  all.  Socialism 
is  a  particular  theory,  with  much  truth  in  it  and  much 
error,  not  very  widely  held  in  this  country,  and  at 
any  rate  outside  the  province  of  this  volume.  What 
is  indicated  is  simply  the  recognition  of  the  demo- 
cratic principle  as  applying  to  the  conditions  of  a 
man's  working  life.  Every  industry  of  sufficient  size 
to  need  it  should  have  a  board  of  representatives  of 
the  workers,  and  a  written  code  of  procedure.  There 
must  be  no  more  arbitrary  decisions  by  owners  or 


214  DEMOCRACY 

managers;  the  people  who  do  the  work  must  be  con- 
sulted; or,  rather,  decisions  must  be  made  in  accord- 
ance with  jointly  accepted  objective  standards,  and 
impartial  investigation.  Industry  must  be  ruled  by 
a  code  of  laws  and  precedents  that  commend  them- 
selves to  the  workers  in  the  industry  and  to  the  public 
at  large,  instead  of  being  subject  to  the  caprices  and 
selfish  interests  of  the  men  who  supply  the  capital. 

For  example,  no  worker  should  be  discharged  with- 
out fair  trial — "due  process  of  law" ;  he  should  not  be 
subject  to  dismissal,  as  is  now  often  the  case,  because 
he  has  joined  a  Union,  or  because  he  is  suspected  of 
holding  "radical"  ideas,  or  because  the  foreman  has 
conceived  a  grudge  against  him.  In  these  days  of 
specialized  skill,  especially  in  the  industries  that  are 
highly  organized,  for  a  man  to  lose  his  job  may  be 
sheer  ruin.  His  life  should  not  thus  be  at  the  mercy 
of  caprice  or  grudge  or  prejudice.  He  must  have  a 
fair  hearing  before  his  peers,  and  be  dismissed  only 
for  just  cause. 

So  with  regard  to  safety  appliances,  sanitary  condi- 
tions, fire  protection,  hours  of  work,  and  the  like. 
These  are  matters  that  affect  the  workers  more  than 
anybody  else ;  it  is  their  right  to  have  a  share  in  the 
decisions  with  regard  to  them.  When  it  comes  to  the 
more  important  questions,  concerning  wages,  business 
policy,  and  price  of  product,  the  public  too  has  its 
rights,  and  must  have  its  voice  in  the  decision.  The 
working  out  of  the  particular  plan  by  which  workers 
and  public  shall  share  responsibility  with  the  owners 
of  the  capital  is  a  matter  too  detailed  for  this  little 
volume.  But  many  such  schemes  are  in  operation 
already,  and  the  general  idea  is  accepted  by  a  number 
of  the  most  conspicuous  owners  of  industry.  The 
process  of  democratization  of  industry  will  run 


DEMOCRACY  IN  INDUSTRY  215 

parallel,  perhaps,  to  the  process  by  which  abso- 
lute monarchy  gave  way  to  the  constitutional  mon- 
archy of  such  a  country  as  England.  It  is  earnestly 
to  be  hoped  that  capitalists  generally  will  have  the 
vision  and  the  patriotism  to  co-operate  in  this  move- 
ment. An  obstinate  refusal,  if  persisted  in,  would 
be  a  fruitful  soil  for  revolution. 

Of  course  it  is  a  nuisance  to  have  to  keep  to  a  code, 
or  to  consult  a  board  of  representatives,  or  to  yield 
to  a  majority  vote.  Autocracy  is  always  simpler  than 
democracy,  and  more  agreeable  for  the  autocrats. 
And  of  course  the  present  "owners"  of  industry  will 
often  be  inclined  to  look  upon  the  democratic  move- 
ment as  trespassing  upon  their  "rights."  But  the 
private  ownership  of  the  capital  used  in  an  industry, 
the  taking  for  private  profit  of  the  excess  wealth  pro- 
duced by  the  industry,  and  the  lodgment  of  exclusive 
control  in  the  hands  of  these  owners,  are  not  the  only 
conceivable  conditions  of  the  carrying  on  of  the  indus- 
try. Our  system  of  private  ownership  of  this  wealth, 
which  is  socially  produced,  will  be  tolerated  only  if 
it  consents  to  such  abridgement  of  its  concentration 
of  power  as  will  make  it  tolerable.  On  our  economic 
system  the  owners  take  what  they  choose  of  the  profits 
of  an  industry  for  their  own  enjoyment  and  keep  what 
they  choose  as  capital  to  produce  more  wealth.  We 
believe  that  this  is  the  best  system;  at  any  rate,  we 
mean  to  give  it  a  thorough  trial  before  discarding  it. 
But  such  grave  abuses  have  crept  into  the  system  that 
unless  they  are  corrected  there  will  certainly  develop 
a  growing  movement  toward  the  abolition  of  the  sys- 
tem, root  and  branch,  as  happened  in  that  unhappy 
country,  Russia,  i 

The  development  6f/  democracy  in  industry  will 
not  only  ensure  reasonable  hours  and  conditions  of 


216  DEMOCRACY 

work,  and  security  ot  employment,  for  the  workers, 
it  will  ultimately  make  for  a  fairer  division  of  the 
profits  of  industr^/now  so  absurdly  apportioned.  Our 
present  concentration  of  wealth  results  in  large  meas- 
ure from  our  present  concentration  of  power.  The 
distribution  of  the  profits  of  the  great  industries  that 
employ  thousands  of  workers  ought  to  be  decided  not 
by  a  handful  of  men  but  by  the  community  as  a  whole. 
The  few  "owners"  now  usually  take  an  exorbitant 
share  for  themselves.  This  exorbitant  share  is  partly 
squandered  in  luxurious  living,  partly  used  to  in- 
crease, by  investment,  the  wealth  of  the  already 
wealthy,  and  partly  used  to  maintain  the  political 
bosses  in  existence  and  through  them  to  push  or 
strangle  legislation.  It  is  safe  to  predict  that  we 
shall  never  have  a  diffusion  of  wealth  consonant  with 
our  ideal  of  Equality,  or  a  political  system  free  from 
organized  large-scale  graft,  until  we  have  a  consider- 
able measure  of  democracy  applied  to  industry. 

This  is  what  is  meant,  or  should  be  meant,  by  the 
dictum  that  the  cure  for  the  ills  of  democracy  is  more 
democracy.  The  money  that  makes  political  "corrup- 
tion" a  profitable  game  comes  chiefly  from  the  rich 
owners  of  industry,  and  the  owners  of  our  natural  re- 
sources— to  a  large  extent  the  same  set  of  people. 
These  men,  we  must  repeat,  are  not  usually  dishonest 
in  intent.  They  think  of  themselves  as  protecting 
their  legitimate  interests.  But  the  thwarting  of  the 
popular  will  that  results,  and  the  fortifying  of  the 
privileges  of  the  rich,  put  off  by  so  much  the  realiza- 
tion of  the  American  ideal.  A  valuable  remedy  for 
political  corruption  may  be  found  in  a  Short  Ballot, 
with  concentration  of  responsibility  and  delegated 
government.  That  reform  would  enable  the  people  to 
wage  a  more  successful  war  against  the  bosses  who 


DEMOCEACY  IN  INDUSTRY  217 

are  in  politics  for  their  personal  profit.  But  there 
will  always  be  a  war  between  the  vigilant  among  the 
people  and  the  bosses  so  long  as  a  class  of  owners  are 
free  to  take  as  much  as  they  can  grab  of  the  profits 
of  industry  and  to  use  a  large  slice  of  that  wealth  for 
the  direct  and  indirect  subsidizing  of  legislation. 

The  main  motive  foil  the  opposition  to  democracy 
in  industry  is,  of  courss-^felfe  natural  desire  of  those 
who  enjoy  the  powej?^™j  the  profits  to  keep  them. 
Democracy  will  -ffiean  a  limitation  of  power,  and, 
in  the  case  of  the  profiteers,  a  limitation  of  profit; 
because  neither  the  irresponsible  power  nor  the  con- 
gestion of  wealth  is  socially  justifiable.  Concentra- 
tion of  power  there  must  be,  for  efficiency,  and  for 
the  location  of  responsibility.  But  it  must  be  re- 
sponsible power,  power  exercised  in  the  interests  of 
the  industry  as  a  whole,  the  interests  of  the  workers 
and  of  the  public,  as  well  as  the  interests  of  the 
owners.  Workers  will  still  be  discharged  for  incom- 
petence or  laziness,  managers  will  still  have  pride  in 
their  departments  and  strive  for  efficiency.  But  the 
value  of  the  results  attained  will  be  measured  by 
the  well-being  secured  for  the  workers  and  the  low 
price  secured  for  the  public  rather  than  by  the  profits 
secured  for  the  owners.  As  it  is  now,  we  worship  the 
god  of  Business  Prosperity.  But  Business  Prosperity 
means  big  profits  for  the  owners ;  it  may  coincide  with 
starvation  wages  or  cruel  tyranny  for  the  workers  and 
high  prices  for  the  consumer.  Democratic  control 
would  not  tolerate  the  worship  of  such  a  god. 

But  would  not  democratic  control,  by  limiting  the 
profits  of  the  owners,  lessen  their  interest  in  the 
business  and  slacken  their  energy?  Would  managers 
bound  by  a  democratically  determined  code  of  pro- 
cedure have  the  same  incentive  for  striving  for  effi- 


218  DEMOCRACY 

ciency?  Would  the  workers,  if  freed  from  the  arbi- 
trary despotism  of  owners  and  managers,  work  as 
hard  as  they  do  now?  It  is  a  matter  of  psychology; 
the  results  would  certainly  be  complex.  We  lack  ex- 
perience of  a  thoroughly  democratized  society.  As 
it  is,  the  brainiest  men  keep  clear,  in  general,  of  the 
various  attempts  at  democratic  enterprise — produc- 
ers' co-operative  societies,  and  the  like — because  they 
can  make  far  higher  profits  for  themselves  in  the 
scramble  of  private  business.  If  all  the  Big  Business 
of  the  country  were  democratized,  the  men  of  brains 
would  be  forced  to  find  their  field  of  activity  within 
it.  And  there  is  no  real  reason  to  suppose  that  their 
energy  and  ingenuity  would  be  lessened  because  they 
were  on  salary  instead  of  facing  an  uncertain  but 
unlimited  profit. 

If  it  is  true  that  salaried  men,  or  men  whose  possi- 
bility of  profits  is  limited  to  the  approximate  level  of 
a  high  salary,  and  whose  power  is  constitutional 
rather  than  autocratic,  will  not  work,  as  a  class,  so 
hard  as  those  who  have  unfettered  opportunity  of 
power  and  profits,  then  we  must  put  up  with  that  loss 
of  energy.  To  this  subject  we  shall  return  in  discus- 
sing our  American  ideal  of  Efficiency.  It  may  be 
enough  at  this  point  to  suggest  that  this  possible  loss 
of  interest  on  the  part  of  the  present  entrepreneur 
class  would  probably  be  insignificant  as  compared 
with  the  increase  of  interest  on  the  part  of  millions 
of  workers  who  would  gain  a  stake  in  their  life-work. 
It  would  become  their  business  as  well  as  their  em- 
ployers'. The  gravest  problem  in  industry  today  is 
how  to  get  the  workers  to  put  their  heart  into  their 
work,  how  to  develop  their  morale.  It  is  safe  to  say 
that  the  only  ultimately  successful  way  of  reviving 
our  waning  industrial  morale  is  through  the  admis- 


DEMOCRACY  IN  INDUSTRY        219 

sion  of  the  workers  to  participation  in  the  control  of 
the  industry.  X^ 

The  big  industries  are  at  present  the  seat  of  a  con- 
tinuous class-confli6(.  Simmering  beneath  the  sur- 
face there  is  always  agitation  and  unrest.  The  small 
owner-class  are  the  legal  "insiders"  in  industry,  the 
great  mass  of  workers  are  simply  hirelings,  with  no 
security  of  tenure,  no  personal  stake  in  the  business. 
No  wonder  the  sight  of  big  profits  going  to  the  owners 
awakens  resentment;  no  wonder  that  decisions  and 
policies  that  affect  the  lives  of  the  workers  adversely 
engender  bitterness.  There  is  no  need  of  "Bolshevist" 
propaganda  to  explain  this  ever-latent  hostility.  The 
interests  of  owners  and  workers  are  obviously  op- 
posed. So  long  as  this  is  the  case,  we  shall  have 
strikes  and  sabotage  and  soldiering  on  the  job.  The 
only  escape  is  to  diminish  the  separateness  of  function 
between  the  two  classes,  to  merge  their  interests. 
Peace  may  exist  in  an  ignorant  and  convention-ridden 
society  between  autocrats  and  their  hirelings;  not  in 
a  democracy.  The  old  idea  was  that  laborers  should 
be  docile,  tame,  submissive ;  the  American  spirit  makes 
them  independent  in  thought,  eager  to  find  scope 
for  initiative  and  personality,  determined  to  have 
their  share  of  profits  and  power.  It  is  too  late  to 
hope  to  stabilize  the  autocratic  ideal ;  we  must  put  our 
backs  into  making  the  democratic  ideal  work. 

It  is  not  the  extension  of  bureaucratic  government 
control  that  we  need;  government  undertakings  have 
not  often  been  truly  democratic.  What  we  need  is 
more  self-determination,  more  individualism,  more 
participation  by  everybody  in  the  decisions  in  the  field 
of  his  particular  work.  Industry  must  be  conceived 
as  a  communal  affair  instead  of  as  a  private  enter- 
prise hiring  multitudes  of  servile  workers.  Only  in 


220  DEMOCKACY 

this  way  can  we  give  dignity  to  the  average  man's  life, 
a  far  horizon,  and  zest  in  his  work.  This  is  what  we 
all  really  want,  or  would  want  if  we  thought  about 
it  enough — to  be  members  of  a  self-governing  com- 
munity of  workers.  It  is  what  Mr.  Gerald  Stanley 
Lee  means  when  he  says,  "The  people  have  decided 
to  be  parts  of  We-Machines.  We  have  been  cogs  in 
other  people's  I-Machines  long  enough." 

It  is  certain  that  a  more  democratic  management 
of  industry  will  lead  to  many  blunders,  and  to  much 
"graft."  Whether  to  more  blunders  and  more  graft 
than  our  existing  system,  no  one  can  say.  Our  pres- 
ent system  is  probably  not  on  the  whole  more  than  ten 
per  cent  efficient;  its  striking  successes  are  few  and 
its  failures  many.  But  however  that  may  be,  progress 
has  to  proceed  by  trial  and  error.  Political  democ- 
racy has  blundered  so  much,  and  been  so  honey- 
combed with  corruption,  that  its  enemies  have  deemed 
it  far  worse  than  autocracy.  Yet  it  has  spread  and 
spread,  until  it  is  obviously  to  be  the  universal  policy. 
The  adventures  of  democratized  industry  will  be 
many.  But  it  is  surely  coming;  because  the  masses 
are  learning  to  want  it,  and  learning  that  they  can 
have  it.  The  ballot  is  the  camel's  nose  in  the  tent; 
nothing  can  prevent  the  camel  from  coming  all  the 
way  in  now.  To  dam  the  current  will  be  but  to  make 
its  eventual  coming  more  tempestuous  and  destruc- 
tive. That  energy  is  wasted  that  opposes  it ;  only  that 
energy  and  thought  are  fruitfully  spent  which  go  to 
the  working  out  of  concrete  plans  and  to  the  educa- 
tion of  the  people  to  use  wisely  their  coming  power. 

Business  men  will,  of  course,  resist  the  transition; 
not  only  those  who  profit  by  their  power,  but  millions 
of  others  who  have  grown  up  to  think  in  their  terms. 
With  their  warnings  of  the  danger  of  costly  blunders, 


DEMOCRACY  IN  INDUSTRY        221 

decreased  production,  and  a  possible  industrial  chaos, 
we  may  sympathize.  But  if  they  raise  the  cry  of 
loyalty  to  American  principles,  we  shall  know  what 
to  say.  Efficient,  feasible,  democracy  may  or  may 
not  be;  but  it  is  at  least  the  ideal  to  which  we  are 
committed,  the  ideal  for  which  our  forefathers  bled, 
the  ideal  for  which  but  just  now  our  sons  and  brothers 
bled.  To  be  obliged  to  argue  this  point  at  all  shows 
how  many  people  have  as  yet  failed  to  grasp  what  the 
idea  of  Democracy  really  implies. 

During  the  War  a  brilliant  speaker  before  the 
American  Academy  of  Social  and  Political  Science 
uttered  these  memorable  words:  "We  stand  com- 
mitted as  never  before  to  the  realization  of  democracy 
in  America.  We  who  have  gone  to  war  to  insure 
democracy  in  the  world  will  have  raised  an  aspiration 
here  that  will  not  end  in  the  overthrow  of  the  Prus- 
sian autocracy  .  .  .  We  shall  call  that  man  unAmeri- 
can  and  no  patriot  who  prates  of  liberty  in  Europe 
and  resists  it  at  home.  A  force  is  loose  in  America 
as  well."  That  this  force  may  be  used  not  for  destruc- 
tion but  for  construction  should  be  our  prayer  and 
our  earnest  concern.  Not  only  must  the  world  be 
made  safe  for  democracy,  but  democracy  itself  must 
be  unfolded  into  its  completest  meaning.  What  fur- 
ther developments  may  lie  before  democracy  we  can- 
not now  say;  but  just  now  it  needs  much  effort  to 
free  it  from  the  forces  which  are  strangling  it  in  pol- 
itics, in  journalism,  and  in  industry. 

SUGGESTED  READINGS 

J.  G.  Brooks,  The  Social  Unrest. 

Jane  Addams,  Democracy  and  Social  Ethics,  Chapters  IY,  Y. 

H.  G.  Wells,  Social  Forces  in  England  and  America,  pp.  112-154. 

Bertrand  Russell,  Political  Ideals,  Chap.  II. 

G.  H.  D.  Cole  and  Mellor,  The  Meaning  of  Industrial  Freedom. 


222  DEMOCKACY 

Sydney  and  Beatrice  Webb,  Industrial  Democracy. 

R.  W.  Sellars,  The  Next  Step  in  Democracy. 

J.  Mackaye,  Americanized  Socialism. 

W.  W.  Willoughby,  Social  Justice,  Chap.  IX. 

T.  N.  Carver,  Essays  in  Social  Justice,  Chap.  VI. 

C.  H.  Douglas,  Economic  Democracy. 

John  Spargo,  Americanism  and  Social  Democracy. 

P.  W.  Litchfield,  The  Industrial  Republic. 

W.  E.  Weyl,  The  New  Democracy,  Chap.  XVII. 

Ordway  Tead,  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  122,  p.  178. 


PART  FOUR 
EFFICIENCY 


CHAPTER  XX 

BIG    BUSINESS 

WE  are  all,  in  our  patriotic  moments,  proud  of  our 
ideal  of  Democracy,  and  of  the  extent  to  which  it  has 
already  been  successfully  embodied  in  our  institu- 
tions. But  as  an  actual  working  motive  in  the  lives 
of  successful  Americans  it  does  not  begin  to  have 
the  potency  of  another  ideal — efficiency.  Efficiency 
it  not  one  of  the  great  historic  slogans  that  we  re- 
peat on  the  Fourth  of  July,  and  attribute  to  Washing- 
ton or  Lincoln.  But  when  the  American  traveller 
boasts  of  his  country  abroad,  what  he  is  most  apt  to 
speak  of  is  the  success  of  our  big  business,  of  our  great 
transportation  systems,  and  the  other  achievements 
in  organization  of  our  industrial  order.  And  most 
foreign  observers  have  given  a  verdict  similar  to 
that  of  Arnold  Bennett's:  "It  seems  to  me  that 
the  brains  and  the  imagination  of  America  shine 
superlatively  in  the  conception  and  ordering  of  its 
vast  organizations  of  human  beings,  and  of  machin- 
ery, and  of  the  two  combined  .  .  .  For  me  they  were 
the  proudest  material  achievements,  and  essentially 
the  most  poetical  achievements,  of  the  United  States." 
Because  of  this  widespread  pride  in  organization 
and  efficiency,  America  has  often  been  sneered  at  as 
a  land  of  "materialists."  But  efficiency  means  the 
saving  of  human  labor,  its  consequent  release  from 
concern  with  the  mechanics  of  life,  and  greater  free- 
dom to  pursue  ideal  ends.  The  simple  peasant  life 

225 


226  EFFICIENCY 

idealized  by  Tolstoy,  the  cottage  handicraft  life  ideal- 
ized by  Ruskin,  have  their  allurement  for  an  age  of 
machinery.  But  actually,  such  a  life  means  longer 
hours  of  work,  a  harder,  less  human  life,  than 
efficiently  organized  industry  necessitates.  It  is  true 
that  the  end  has  often  been  lost  sight  of  in  preoccupa- 
tion with  the  means ;  masses  of  workers  have  not  yet 
won  the  greater  leisure,  the  pleasanter  conditions  of 
work,  the  larger  purchasing  power,  for  which  the  effi- 
cient organization  of  human  labor  opens  the  way. 
The  benefits  of  our  industrial  efficiency  have  not  yet 
been  properly  distributed.  To  be  a  worthy  ideal, 
Efficiency  must  lose  its  savor  of  tyranny  and  ruth- 
lessness  and  self-seeking,  and  go  hand  in  hand  with  a 
true  Equality  and  Democracy.  But  in  this  way,  as 
an  integral  part  of  our  national  ideal,  Efficiency 
can  not  be  overemphasized. 

Just  what  efficiency  in  the  ordering  of  human  rela- 
tions requires  is  a  problem  at  which  generations  to 
come  must  work.  But  there  is  one  tendency  in  Ameri- 
ica  so  far-reaching  in  its  influence  on  the  lives  of  our 
people  that  it  must  have  our  immediate  attention. 
This  is  the  movement  toward  combination  and  cen- 
tralization in  business.  There  is  no  doubt  that  Big 
Business  is  an  American  ideal,  and  that,  whatever 
impulses  toward  the  exercising  of  power  and  the  rak- 
ing in  of  profits  may  enter  in  as  motives,  its  justifica- 
tion is  its  efficiency.  Already  we  have  many  splendid 
examples  of  the  saving  of  human  labor  and  the  dim- 
inution of  the  price  of  commodities,  through  the 
formation  of  our  great  corporations  or  "trusts."  And 
there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  next  generation 
will  witness  a  great  increase  in  this  co-ordination  in 
the  business  world. 

That,  in  general,  the  replacement  of  competitive 


BIG  BUSINESS  227 

business  by  closely  co-operative  or  highly  centralized 
business  does  make  for  efficiency  is  indubitable.  Lack 
of  organization  means,  for  one  thing,  unnecessary 
duplication  of  plant  and  equipment.  For  example, 
it  has  been  estimated  by  reliable  statisticians  thai 
the  flour-mills  of  the  country  could  grind  all  the  wheat 
produced  in  a  year  in  157  days,  and  that  the  saw 
mills  could  saw  all  the  lumber  consumed  in  a  year 
in  120  days.  Hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars  are 
thus  wasted  by  competitive  business.  Moreover,  a 
great  deal  of  time  and  money  is  lost  in  cross-routing, 
in  separate  purchasing  and  keeping  of  accounts. 

A  great  many  economies  possible  to  a  large-scale 
organization  are  notYpraeticable  for  the  petty  manu- 
facturer or  tradesm&i.  The  big  concern  finds  it 
profitable  to  utilize  by-products.  It  can  buy  raw 
materials  in  larger  quantities,  and  needs  to  keep  less 
material  on  hand  than  was  necessary  in  the  case  of 
the  smaller  concerns  it  replaces.  It  can  afford  ex- 
penditures beyond  the  means  of  the  smaller  concerns, 
it  can  avail  itself  of  the  most  expert  advice,  and  strike 
out  more  boldly  into  new  lines.  Having  many  strings 
to  its  bow,  it  needs  less  to  fear  a  single  mistake,  and 
can  be  more  enterprising  than  the  small-scale  manu- 
facturer or  trader  can  usually  dare  to  be. 

The  wastefulness  of  competition  is  most  striking 
in  the  field  of  distribution,  including  middlemen  and 
retailers.  In  almost  every  line  we  see  thousands  of 
unnecessary  shops,  delivery  wagons,  and  employees. 
For  example,  several  years  ago  a  survey  was  made 
of  the  distribution  of  milk  in  the  city  of  Washington, 
D.  C.  "Sixty-five  dealers  supplied  the  city,  by  a 
wasteful  process  of  duplicating  storage,  pasteurizing, 
cooling  and  delivery  plants;  in  some  apartment 
houses  substantially  every  tenant  was  served  by  a 


228  EFFICIENCY 

different  dealer.  On  one  city  block  seventeen  milk 
wagons  were  counted  one  morning,  each  serving  one 
to  three  customers  .  .  .  Competitive  conditions  made 
it  impossible  to  enforce  proper  care  of  bottles.  Wash- 
ington was  paying  about  $120,000  annually  for  milk 
bottles!  A  public  service  monopoly,  enforcing  penal- 
ties, as  gas,  water,  and  electric  companies  do,  would 
save  most  of  this.  Under  competition,  the  dealer 
attempting  it  would  lose  his  trade  to  more  lenient 
dealers  .  .  .  There  was  testimony  of  considerable 
quantities  of  milk  going  to  waste  at  seasons  when 
supply  exceeded  demands.  Small  dealers  could  not 
afford  manufacturing  plants  to  convert  their  surplus 
into  butter,  cheese,  condensed  and  powdered  milk. 
Under  centralized  control,  the  single  distributor 
would  utilize  the  surplus  at  all  times."  It  is  no  won- 
der that  it  cost  as  much  to  distribute  milk  in  Wash- 
ington as  to  produce  it  and  get  it  into  the  hands  of 
the  distributors. 

This  situation  is  fairly  typical.  A  committee  of 
the  New  York  legislature  stated,  after  investigation, 
that  "under  present  competitive  conditions  it  takes 
almost  as  many  men  to  bring  the  dairyman's  milk  to 
the  consumer  as  there  are  dairymen  engaged  in  the 
production  of  milk,  with  all  their  employees.  This 
is  the  result  of  the  purely  competitive  basis  upon 
which  the  business  is  handled." 

Or  take  testimony  presented  before  a  recent  Con- 
gressional committee:  "The  conditions  of  the  retail 
merchandizing  business  are  very  uneconomical.  There 
are  two  or  three  times  as  many  people,  in  my  judg- 
ment, engaged  in  the  retail  business  as  should  be."  In 
a  later  statement,  this  witness  said  he  "believed  it 
would  be  nearer  the  truth  to  state  that  five  times  as 
many  people  are  making  a  living  out  of  the  retail 


BIG  BUSINESS  229 

shoe  business  as  would  be  necessary  to  serve  the 
public.  This,  of  course,  connotes  that  other  retailing 
expenses  are  likewise  excessive — rent,  capital  invest- 
ment, insurance,  fixtures  .  .  .  and  many  more." 

One  of  our  best-known  retail  merchants,  Mr.  Ed- 
ward Filene,  in  a  magazine  article  published  in  1920, 
declares  that  retail  distribution,  as  at  present  con- 
ducted, practically  doubles  the  price  of  the  manufac- 
tured article  to  the  consumer.  "There  is  doubtless 
profiteering  here  and  there  in  isolated  cases,  but  the 
real  criminal  profiteer  is  unscientific  method — gen- 
eral inefficiency  of  organization." 

In  addition  to  this  needless  multiplication  of  equip- 
ment and  effort  in  the  process  of  distribution  itself, 
there  is  an  enormous  waste  in  competitive  advertis- 
ing. Hundreds  of  thousands  of  drummers  spend  their 
energies  in  persuading  retailers,  contractors,  or  con- 
sumers, to  buy  their  goods  rather  than  the  other 
man's.  Millions  of  dollars  are  spent  in  advertise- 
ments in  newspapers,  magazines,  and  circulars,  and 
on  billboards.  The  buyers,  of  course,  have  to  pay  this 
expense.  Mr.  Henry  Holt  has  recently  written, 
"Those  who  use  the  finer  kinds  of  soap  probably  pay 
more  for  having  it  dinned  into  them  to  use  a  certain 
brand,  than  they  pay  for  the  soap  itself."  And  "the 
country  probably  pays  more  for  having  its  elementary 
schoolbooks  argued  and  cajoled  and  bribed  into  use, 
than  for  the  books  themselves."  These  are  two  cases 
of  a  general  truth.  Wary  buyers  avoid  much-adver- 
tised articles,  realizing  that  in  buying  them  they  will 
have  to  pay  for  the  advertising.  It  is  said  that  the 
cost  of  advertising  means  an  overhead  charge  of 
twenty-five  per  cent  on  American  industry. 

The  money  spent  in  advertising  is  not  wholly  lost. 
It  is  desirable  that  new  articles,  as  well  as  the  merits 


230  EFFICIENCY 

of  familiar  articles,  should  be  called  to  the  attention 
of  potential  purchasers.  Unhappily,  competitive  ad- 
vertising is  so  widely  untrustworthy  in  its  statements 
that  it  is,  on  the  whole,  perhaps  as  misleading  as 
enlightening.  It  works  on  the  mind  rather  as  a 
quasi-hypnotic  suggestion  than  as  a  channel  of  infor- 
mation. 

A  more  important  aspect  of  the  matter  is  the  fact 
that  advertising  supports  our  newspapers  and  maga- 
zines. If,  because  of  the  unification  of  the  various 
industries  and  distributing  agencies,  advertising  were 
no  longer  necessary  to  draw  trade  from  rivals,  most  of 
these  dailies  and  weeklies  and  monthlies  would  either 
have  to  increase  very  greatly  the  subscription  price 
or  receive  a  subsidy.  The  increase  in  price  of  news- 
papers and  magazines  would  be  a  calamity,  since  it 
would  decrease  the  number  of  readers.  On  the  other 
hand,  their  release  from  the  need  of  pleasing  the  big 
advertisers  would  permit  a  great  gain  in  honesty 
and  nonpartisanship  in  presenting  the  news  and  ex- 
pressing opinions.  A  number  of  our  most  useful 
weeklies,  and  a  few  dailies  and  monthlies,  are  now 
endowed,  and  so  independent  of  advertising.  But  in 
general,  the  problem  of  efficiency  in  business  is  wrapt 
up  with  the  problem  of  journalism,  as  it  is  with  the 
problem  of  politics,  and  many  another  problem.  And 
this  tangled  inter-relation  of  problems  is  one  reason 
why  social  progress  in  this  direction,  as  in-  many 
others,  is  so  slow. 

There  are  many  othet  advantages  of  business  amal- 
gamation, as  over  agaftist  the  anarchic  struggle  of 
nineteenth  century  business.  Everyone's  good  ideas 
and  methods  become  available  for  the  whole  business; 
whereas  in  a  regime  of  competition,  secrets  are  aare- 
fully  guarded,  patents  give  exclusive  use  of  labor- 


BIG  BUSINESS  231 

saving  inventions  to  a  few,  and  outdated  methods  and 
materials  are  perforce  used  by  most.  Further,  Big 
Business  can  afford  to  maintain  laboratories  and  ex- 
perts for  the  investigation  of  new  inventions  and 
methods.  It  passes  fewer  positions  on,  "in  the  fam- 
ily," to  inefficient  workers  and  managers,  and  offers 
more  opportunity  for  the  young  man  or  woman  of 
brains  but  without  business  conections.  In  these  and 
other  ways,  a  completely  organized  business  can 
serve  the  public  better  than  cut-throat  business,  in 
most  cases,  can. 

It  is,  of  course,  not  always  true  that  Big  Business 
is  more  efficient  than  small-scale  business.  It  depends 
upon  the  particular  nature  of  the  article  manufac- 
tured or  sold.  Some  businesses  are  in  their  nature 
local — as,  a  street-car  system,  a  lighting-system.  In 
other  cases,  as  in  the  matter  of  coal,  steel,  oil,  fertiliz- 
ers, etc.,  the  whole  world  should  be  organized  as  one 
economic  community.  But  whether  its  sphere  is 
local  or  national  or  world-wide,  the  ideal  of  Efficiency 
demands  that  every  business  should,  within  its  sphere, 
be  free  from  waste  and  duplication  of  effort.  This 
implies  the  elimination  of  the  sort  of  competition 
wherein  rivals  seek  to  perform  the  same  service. 
There  may  still  be  much  rivalry  between  the  different 
departments  of  a  given  business,  between  different 
plants,  between  diffierent  producers  or  salesmen. 
But  it  will  be  a  rivalry  in  the  performance  of  co- 
operating tasks,  not  the  sort  of  rivalry  in  which  one 
man's  success  means  another  man's  failure. 

The  gain  through  this  steering  of  effort  into  co- 
operative instead  of  antagonistic  work  is  not  merely 
material,  it  is  mental  and  spiritual.  Competitive 
business  encourages  hardness  of  heart  and  penalizes 
kindness.  Man  is  pitted  against  man,  not  in  a  gener- 


232  EFFICIENCY 

cms  spirit  of  emulation,  as  in  competitive  sports,  but 
in  a  veritable  struggle  for  existence.  Legislation  and 
government  regulation  can  eliminate  some  of  the  more 
unscrupulous  and  anti-social  acts  devised  in  this 
struggle  but  it  can  never  put  an  end  to  the  manifold 
ways  in  which,  under  a  competitive  regime,  one  man 
or  firm  will  selfishly  seek  to  get  the  better  of  its 
competitors.  The  result  of  this  struggle  is,  as  we  all 
know,  a  constant  series  of  business  failures,  each 
meaning  an  economic  loss  to  the  community,  often 
of  considerable  magnitude;  and  each  meaning  God 
only  knows  how  much  heartache  and  despair. 

It  is  often  thought  that  this  high  tension  under 
which  competitive  business  lives — this  perpetual  fear 
of  failure  and  this  constant  impulse  to  get  the  better 
of  rivals — makes  for  a  greater  expenditure  of  energy 
and  initiative;  that  monopolistic  business  tends  to 
become  slack  and  unenterprising,  through  the  relax- 
ing of  this  pressure.  The  results  achieved  by  the 
"trusts"  in  this  country  do  not  seem  to  bear  out  this 
contention;  if  there  is  a  diminution  of  energy  from 
this  cause,  its  baneful  effect  is  more  than  counter- 
balanced by  the  gains.  It  may  be  said,  however,  that 
it  is  neither  normal  nor  desirable  for  human  beings 
to  live  under  such  a  strain  as  competitive  business 
often  entails,  and  that  enough  motives  remain — pride 
in  achievement,  promotion  and  retention  of  position, 
increase  in  product  and  hence  in  financial  return,  and 
so  on — to  keep  human  energies  whipped  to  the  degree 
desirable.  A  more  democratic  control  of  business 
will  undoubtedly  tap  new  sources  of  energy  and  in- 
terest. And  if,  in  the  end,  we  should  find  that  a 
completely  organized  industrial  system  was  somewhat 
more  easy-going  than  the  feverish  pace  of  some  con- 
temporary businesses,  we  must  remember  that  human 


BIG  BUSINESS  233 

welfare  is  a  bigger  thing  than  material  productivity. 
Freedom  from  strain,  and  a  sense  of  security,  are 
worth  paying  for. 

But  there  still  remains  the  question,  If  the  busi- 
ness of  the  country  is  thus  fully  organized,  will  not 
the  benefits  accrue  to  a  small  class,  and  further  accen- 
tuate the  inequalities  of  wealth  and  power  already 
so  marked?  The  remarkable  achievements  of  our 
great  corporations  have  had  as  their  corollary  the 
accumulation  of  great  private  fortunes,  with  a  con- 
sequent power  over  journalism,  politics,  and  legisla- 
tion that  has  awakened  considerable  popular  distrust. 
It  is  not  that  we  have  had,  usually,  to  pay  higher 
prices  for  what  we  buy  from  the  trusts.  The  old 
notion  that  competition  suffices  to  keep  prices  down 
has  gone  by  the  board.  The  experience  of  recent 
years  shows  that  there  is  as  much  profiteering  by 
small  concerns  as  by  Big  Business.  When  credit  can 
be  got,  and  the  general  impression  of  scarcity  be- 
comes widespread,  manufacturers  and  dealers  will 
seize  their  opportunity  for  raising  prices  without  any 
formal  conspiracy  or  co-operation.  In  general,  with 
certain  exceptions,  the  formation  of  trusts  has  low- 
ered rather  than  raised  the  price  of  commodities  to 
the  consumer. 

But  even  if  the  public  is  actually  no  worse  off,  it 
is  far  more  inclined  to  resent  the  concentrated  profi- 
teering of  a  few  big  firms  than  the  more  diffused 
prosperity  of  many  smaller  firms.  The  profit-taking 
is  far  more  conspicuous,  and  benefits  fewer  people. 
Moreover,  there  is  a  sense  engendered  of  being  at  the 
mercy  of  these  industrial  autocrats  which  is  repug- 
nant to  our  democratic  sensibilities.  And  of  course, 
there  is  a  continual  protest  against  absorption  or 
elimination,  on  the  part  of  the  small  manufacturers 


234  EFFICIENCY 

or  dealers  who  find  themselves  elbowed  out  or  threat- 
ened with  ruin  by  their  bigger  rivals.  The  process 
by  which  the  great  corporations  have  won  their  power 
has  often  been  unscrupulous,  and  still  oftener  is  the 
result  of  a  struggle  which,  however  fair  according  to 
our  current  standards  of  business  practice,  has  ac- 
tually resulted  in  the  ruin  of  their  former  rivals. 

The  effect  upon  the  employees  of  this  organization 
of  business  into  large  units  has  many  aspects.  The 
wealthy  corporation  can  usually  afford  to  pay  better 
wages,  to  build  more  sanitary  and  comfortable  fac- 
tories, to  make  working  conditions  in  many  ways 
pleasanter.  Its  conspicuousness  makes  it  more  liable 
to  public  criticism,  and  it  is  apt  to  feel  more  keenly 
the  need  of  heeding  such  criticism.  In  many  cases 
"welfare  work"  is  being  carried  on  by  our  big  firms 
which  would  never  have  been  possible  to  the  smaller 
houses. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  big  corporation  has  so  much 
more  power,  that  when  it  chooses  to  lower  wages,  to 
oppose  the  unionization  of  employees,  or  in  any  other 
way  to  resist  the  desires  of  labor,  it  is  a  far  more  for- 
midable antagonist  than  the  smaller  competing  firms. 
There  is  less  personal  contact  of  employer  with  em- 
ployees; it  is  usually  harder  for  the  employee  with 
a  grievance  to  get  his  case  before  his  employer.  And 
the  ownership  of  stock  by  absentee  shareholders 
makes  a  continuous  urge  for  dividends  which  some- 
times results  in  a  policy  that  is  inhuman  in  the 
extreme. 

The  oppositioirto  Big  Business  comes,  then,  from 
several  quarters.  It  comes  from  the  owners  of  small 
factories  and  shops,  who  do  not  want  to  give  up  their 
independence  and  become  parts  of  a  larger  concern. 
It  comes  from  labor-unions,  that  fear  the  increase  of 


BIG  BUSINESS  235 

power  of  the  employers,  which  may  make  it  harder 
for  them  to  succeed  in  their  efforts  to  get  fairer  re- 
muneration and  better  working  conditions.    It  comes 
/r%. 

from  ih«public,  that  sees  with  apprehension  this  con- 
centration of  wealth  and  power.  The  result  has  been 
a  series  of  "anti-trust"  laws,  and  repeated  pronounce- 
ments like  that  of  the  Democratic  party  platform  o'f 
1912,  which  declared  that  "the  control  by  any  one 
corporation  of  so  large  a  proportion  of  industry  as 
to  make  it  a  menace  to  competitive  conditions"  is 
"indefensible  and  intolerable,"  and  demanded  "the 
enactment  of  such  additional  legislation  as  may  be 
necessary  to  make  it  impossible  for  a  private  mon- 
opoly to  exist  in  the  United  States." 

The  lessons  of  the  Great  War,  however,  were  in  no 
respect  more  striking  than  in  their  emphasis  upon  the 
need  of  the  pooling  of  interests,  and  the  incapacity  of 
a  divided  industrial  regime.  Temporarily,  men 
worked  together  under  a  unified  governmental  plan, 
and  achieved  results  in  production  and  distribution 
which  amazed  us  all.  Almost  as  much  energy  was 
spent  in  organizing  industry  and  commerce  as  in 
moving  armies  and  fighting  the  enemy.  A  machinery 
of  co-operation  was  built  up,  an  economic  integration, 
which,  in  spite  of  the  drawing  away  of  several  million 
young  men  from  industry,  speeded  up  production  to 
a  point  far  above  pre-war  possibilities.  We  have 
since  drifted  back  into  much  of  the  old  disorder  of 
effort  and  undisciplined  confusion.  But  the  lessons 
of  the  War  have  graved  themselves  deeply  upon  many 
minds. 

It  is  true,  of  course,  that  the  government  control 
exercised  over  firms,  small  and  great,  and  tolerated 
in  the  emergency,  became  irksome  when  the  emer- 
gency had  passed.  It  is  also  true  that  much  blunder- 


236  EFFICIENCY 

ing  and  graft  appeared  in  this  hasty  and  unprece- 
dented organization,  of  the  nation's  effort.  But  it 
would  seem  as  if  our  efforts  ought  to  be  directed 
rather  toward  improving  the  machinery  of  organiza- 
tion, and  eliminating  the  blunders  and  the  opportuni- 
ties for  graft,  rather  than  in  discarding  the  ideal  of 
co-ordination  and  unity.  As  our  population  grows, 
and  our  natural  resources  yield  less  exuberantly,  the 
problem  of  efficiency  in  production  and  distribution 
will  become  more  and  more  acute ;  and  it  would  seem 
wise  for  us  to  be  working  in  the  direction  of  that 
unification  of  effort  to  which  we  must  eventually 
come. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Sherman  Anti-Trust  Act 
never  accomplished  its  purpose.  The  process  of 
amalgamation  has  gone  pretty  steadily  on,  and  recent 
judicial  interpretations  have  followed  the  principle 
that  only  those  combinations  which  actually  work 
to  the  injury  of  the  public  are  to  be  condemned,  not 
the  process  of  combination  itself. 

We  should  be  proud  of  this  genius  for  organization ; 
it  is  one  of  our  most  distinctive  American  traits,  and 
ought  to  be  one  of  our  proudest  ideals.  It  requires 
great  intellectual  power,  executive  ability,  imagina- 
tion, and  faith,  for  its  completest  realization.  But 
there  must  be  more  than  that.  There  must  go  hand 
in  hand  with  this  organization  of  production  and 
distribution  such  a  measure  of  democratic  participa- 
tion in  control  by  the  workers  as  shall  ensure  them 
a  self-respecting  life  and  their  just  share  of  the  results 
of  the  new  efficiency.  And  there  must  be  an  increased 
oversight  of  these  great  private  organizations  by  the 
State,  to  ensure  the  public  against  exploitation. 
Delicate  problems  these.  But  as  industry  is  the  back- 
bone of  a  nation's  life,  so  these  problems  are  the  fun- 


BIG  BUSINESS  237 

damental  problems,  whose  solution  is  imperative  if 
its  future  is  to  be  secure. 

How  to  preserve  and  increase  that  individual 
initiative  and  energy  in  which  we  so  firmly  believe, 
how  to  increase  the  dignity  and  power  of  individual 
men,  and  yet  harmonize  their  efforts  into  one  great 
synthetic  purpose, — that  is  the  task  set  for  our  young 
business  men  to  think  out.  We  shall  be  proud  indeed 
if  America  leads  the  way  in  solving  this  great 
problem. 

SUGGESTED  READINGS 

C.  R.  Van  Hise,  Concentration  and  Control. 

F.  C.  McVey,  Modern  Industrialism. 

Florence  Kelley,  Modern  Industry. 

J.  W.  Jenks,  The  Trust  Problem. 

E.  von  Halle,  Trusts  and  Industrial  Combinations. 

S.  C.  T.  Dodd,  Combinations,  their  Use  and  Abuse. 

R.  T.  Ely,  Monopolies  and  Trusts. 

E.  A.  Ross,  Sin  and  Society. 

H.  R.  Seager,  Introduction  to  Economics,  Chap.  XXII. 

Durant  Drake,  Problems  of  Conduct,  Chap.  XXVI,  and  pp. 

379-381. 

L.  D.  Brandeis,  Other  People's  Money. 
P.  E.  Haworth,  America  in  Ferment,  Chap.  VIII. 
Ida  Tarbell,  History  of  the  Standard  Oil  Company. 
A.  K.  Fiske,  Honest  Business. 
Bruce  Wyman,  Control  of  the  Market. 
C.  P.  Steinmetz,  America  and  the  New  Epoch. 
A.  D.  Noyes,  in  Atlantic  Monthly f  voL  111,  p.  653. 


CHAPTEE  XXI 

COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING 

THE  combination  and  co-operation  of  business  men 
have  made  possible  the  great  achievements  of  Ameri- 
can business — greater  production,  improved  product, 
larger  profits,  lower  prices.  But  these  economic 
gains  have  not,  for  the  most  part,  resulted  in  any 
great  improvement  in  the  status  of  the  employees, 
except  as  the  latter  have  been  able,  in  their  turn,  to 
bring  pressure  to  bear  through  organizations  of  their 
own.  The  labor-unions  thus  necessitated  have  also 
many  other  achievements  to  their  credit.  They  have 
helped  to  assimilate  and  Americanize  heterogeneous 
groups  of  immigrants,  have  promoted  friendliness  and 
mutual  help  among  the  laboring  classes,  and  in  many 
ways  served  their  welfare. 

Thus  the  unions  are  now  an  accepted  part  of  our 
American  life.  Theodore  Koosevelt,  speaking  at 
Columbus,  September  10, 1910,  said,  "If  I  were  a  wage 
worker,  I  should  certainly  join  a  union,  ...  In  our 
modern  industrial  system  the  union  is  just  as  neces- 
sary as  the  corporation,  and  in  the  modern  field  of 
industrialism,  it  is  often  an  absolute  necessity  that 
there  should  be  collective  bargaining  by  the  employees 
with  the  employers;  and  such  collective  bargaining 
is  but  one  of  the  many  benefits  conferred  by  wisely 
and  honestly  organized  unions  that  act  properly." 

To  offset  this  good  record,  it  must  be  admitted  that 
the  unions  have  often  retarded  industrial  progress 
and  even  the  efficient  working  of  existing  machinery. 
They  have  at  times  sought  to  restrict  the  number  of 

238 


COLLECTIVE  BARGAINING  239 

apprentices  in  a  trade,  opposed  trade  schools,  opposed 
scientific  management,  in  order  to  make  more  work, 
insisted  on  the  retention  of  incompetent  employees, 
and  upon  a  uniform  wage  to  all,  without  regard  to 
efficiency.  They  have  sometimes  been  in  the  grip  of 
grafting  leaders,  who  have  sought  to  use  their  power 
for  their  personal  enrichment.  They  have  some- 
times broken  their  agreements  with  employers,  and 
declared  strikes  in  violation  of  contract.  In  short, 
like  all  other  forms  of  human  organization,  they  come 
under  the  control,  from  time  to  time,  of  all  sorts  of 
leaders,  wise  and  unwise,  scrupulous  and  selfish,  and 
have  a  mixed  record  of  good  and  evil — whether  better 
or  worse  than  that  of  business  firms,  trusts,  and 
financial  rings,  or  than  that  of  political  parties,  it 
would  be  difficult  to  say. 

It  is  fair  to  say,  however,  that  some  or  all  of  the 
above-mentioned  tactics  have  been  adopted  by  unions 
because,  in  their  judgment,  they  were  necessary 
means  for  the  attainment  of  their  end — the  bettering 
of  the  status  of  labor.  And  however  shortsighted 
their  methods  at  times  have  been,  it  is  beyond  dispute 
that  they  have  been  the  greatest  force  that  has  made 
for  higher  wages,  shorter  hours,  and  better  working 
conditions.  Even  the  attainment  of  decently  humane 
conditions  for  working  women  and  children  has  been 
mostly  the  work  of  the  unions,  in  the  face  of  stren- 
uous opposition  from  the  employers.  It  is  no  wonder 
that  organized  labor  thinks  of  itself  "not  as  a  selfish 
group  which  is  extorting  all  it  can  from  the  com- 
munity, but  as  a  group  which,  under  the  conditions 
of  a  modern  industrial  society,  is  now  occupying  the 
firing  line  in  the  battle  for  human  liberation." 

The  labor-unions  are  able  to  ameliorate  the  lot  of 
the  workers  in  two  ways,  by  influencing  legislation, 


240  EFFICIENCY 

and  by  direct  bargaining  with  the  employers.  The 
latter  has  been  by  far  the  more  efficacious  method 
hitherto.  There  has  been  little  agreement  among 
labor-leaders  upon  political  measures,  and  no  con- 
certed action  at  the  polls.  But  economic  pressure 
brought  to  bear  upon  the  owners  of  industry  through 
the  power  of  the  workers  to  cease  working  has  had 
marked  effects. 

Whether  we  shall  approve  of  the  exercise  of  this 
power  depends  upon  our  judgment  as  to  the  desir- 
ability of  the  ends  sought.  Undoubtedly  in  many 
cases  organized  labor  has  demanded  more  than  could 
reasonably  be  granted  under  existing  conditions. 
But  in  general,  the  status  of  the  workers  has  been 
unnecessarily  low,  and  the  gains  won  through  col- 
lective action  desirable,  for  the  community  as  a  whole, 
as  well  as  for  the  workers.  Hence  nearly  all  disin- 
terested students  of  the  industrial  situation  have 
approved  the  principle  of  collective  bargaining. 
Public  Commissions  on  Industrial  Relations,  Church 
Conferences,  Presidents  of  the  United  States — practi- 
cally everyone  except  certain  representatives  of  the 
employing  class  declare  the  method  necessary ;  so  that 
it  is  now  firmly  established  as  a  principle  of  Ameri- 
canism. Recently  the  Federal  Council  of  the 
Churches  declared  that  "the  safety  and  development 
of  the  workers,  the  best  interest  of  the  employers, 
the  security  and  progress  of  the  community  all 
demand  it." 

The  success  of  collective  bargaining  depends,  obvi- 
ously, upon  the  completeness  with  which  the  workers 
are  organized.  If  only  a  part  of  those  in  a  given 
industrial  concern  belong  to  the  unions,  and  the  rest 
refuse  to  obey  their  leadership,  the  employer  can  defy 
their  demands.  Hence  the  earnest  efforts  to  unionize 


COLLECTIVE  BARGAINING  241 

laborers,  and  the  bitterness  of  the  resentment  felt  by 
the  members  of  the  unions  toward  the  "scabs" — 
workers  who  continue  to  work  when  the  union  decides 
to  strike,  or  who  take  the  places  of  strikers.  If  it  is 
true  that  the  betterment  of  the  lot  of  the  workers  is 
made,  for  the  most  part,  only  by  the  collective  effort 
and  sacrifice  of  the  workers  united  in  their  unions, 
then  the  worker  who  refuses  to  join  in  this  effort  and 
sacrifice,  who  continues  to  accept  his  pay  when  his 
comrades  are  wageless,  and  helps  to  make  their  effort 
and  sacrifice  fruitless,  is  naturally  regarded  as  a 
traitor  to  the  common  cause  and  deserving  of  the 
utmost  contempt. 

The  organization  of  laborers  along  the  lines  of 
their  separate  crafts  has  stood  in  the  way  of  their 
collective  action.  Hence  the  movement  toward  indus- 
trial unions  whose  membership  shall  be  coextensive 
with  the  workers  in  an  entire  industry.  And  hence 
the  demand  for  the  Closed  Shop,  that  is,  a  shop  in 
which  only  union  members  are  allowed  to  work.  If 
such  a  requirement  were  to  become  universal,  all 
the  workers  would  join  the  unions,  and  no  one  would 
be  excluded  from  positions.  But  of  course,  this  is 
precisely  what  the  autocratically-minded  employers 
do  not  wish.  They  follow  the  ancient  maxim,  Divide 
et  impera.  In  particular,  the  owners  of  some  of  the 
greatest  corporations  have  fought  the  unionization  of 
their  employees,  under  the  slogan,  The  Open  Shop. 

The  Open  Shop  idea  appeals  to  our  American  spirit 
of  individualism;  it  insists  upon  the  right  of  each 
laborer  to  decide  for  himself  whether  or  not  he  will 
join  the  union.  But  if  the  unions  are  right  in  saying, 
United  we  stand,  divided  we  fall,  they  must  blame 
this  individualistic  attitude  as  vigorously  as  a  nation 
at  war  condemns  the  citizens  who  disrupt  its  unity. 


242  EFFICIENCY 

The  employer,  or  the  owner  of  industrial  securities, 
is  not  disinterested ;  the  success  of  a  labor-movement 
may  lessen  his  profits  or  his  dividends.  And  so  his 
conscientious  fervor  for  the  open  shop  ideal  is  not 
quite  convincing.  And  when  we  find  directors  of 
corporations  quietly  discharging  men  who  have 
joined  the  unions,  and  even  employing,  as  many  do, 
spies  among  the  workers  to  spot  those  who  show 
signs  of  favoring  union  ideas,  we  realize  that  their 
avowed  advocacy  of  the  Open  Shop  often  masks  an 
actual  determination  to  keep  the  employees  unor- 
ganized and  so  helpless. 

That  acute  critic  of  American  institutions,  Mr. 
Dooley,  saw  clearly  the  laborers'  side  of  the  Open 
Shop  controversy. 

"What's  all  this  that's  in  the  papers  about  the  open 
shop?"  asked  Mr.  Hennessey. 

"Why,  don't  you  know?"  said  Mr.  Dooley.  "Really 
I'm  surprised  at  yer  ignorance,  Hinnissey.  What  is 
th'  open  shop?  Sure,  'tis  where  they  kape  the  doors 
open  to  accommodate  th'  constant  stream  av'  min 
comin'  in  t'  take  jobs  cheaper  than  th'  min  what  has 
th'  jobs.  'Tis  like  this,  Hinnissey:  Suppose  wan  av 
these  freeborn  citizens  is  workin'  in  an  open  shop 
f'r  th'  princely  wages  av  wan  large  iron  dollar  a  day 
av  tin  hour.  Along  comes  anither  son-av-gun  and  he 
sez  to  th'  boss  <Oi  think  Oi  could  handle  th'  job  nicely 
f'r  ninety  cints.'  'Sure,'  sez  th'  boss,  and  th'  wan 
dollar  man  gets  out  into  th'  crool  woruld  t'  exercise 
his  inalienable  roights  as  a  freeborn  American  citizen 
an'  scab  on  some  other  poor  devil.  An'  so  it  goes  on, 
Hinnissey.  An'  who  gits  th'  benefit?  Thrue,  it  saves 
th'  boss  money,  but  he  don't  care  no  more  f'r  money 
thin  he  does  f'r  his  right  eye. 


COLLECTIVE  BARGAINING  243 

"It's  all  principle  wid  him.  He  hates  t'  see  men 
robbed  av  their  indipendence.  They  must  have  their 
indipendence,  regardless  av  anything  else." 

"But,"  said  Mr.  Hennessey,  "these  open  shop  min 
ye  menshun  say  they  are  f'r  unions  iv  properly  con- 
ducted." 

"Shure,"  said  Mr.  Dooley,  "iv  properly  conducted. 
An'  there  we  are :  An'  how  would  they  have  thim  con- 
ducted? No  strikes,  no  rules,  no  contracts,  no  scales, 
hardly  iny  wages  an'  dam  few  mimbers." 

If  this  is  often  the  actual  psychology  of  the  em- 
ployer, it  must  be  admitted  that  the  motives  and 
ideals  of  the  unions  are  often  equally  open  to  criti- 
cism. But  since  there  is  an  inevitable  conflict  of 
interest  between  profit-seeking  employers  and  em- 
ployees seeking  better  working  and  living  conditions, 
it  seems  necessary  to  forward  by  whatever  means  are 
consonant  with  our  American  ideal  of  Liberty,  the 
organization  of  employees,  in  order  that  the  two 
parties  may  be  fairly  equal  in  the  contest.  At  any 
rate,  the  fight  against  unionization  usually  results 
in  the  spread  of  restlessness  and  radicalism ;  workers 
who  find  themselves  unable  to  help  themselves  by  fair 
means  will  fall  back  upon  foul  means.  If  labor  is 
opposed  too  generally  in  its  efforts  toward  organiza- 
tion, it  is  likely  to  become  destructively  pugnacious 
and  tend  more  and  more  to  sabotage,  slacking  on  the 
job,  and  other  forms  of  "direct  action."  There  can 
be  little  doubt  that  the  Report  of  the  United  States 
Commission  on  Industrial  Relations,  in  1915,  was 
right  in  declaring  that  "the  most  effectual  course  that 
can  be  pursued  to  bring  about  general  contentment 
among  our  people  ...  is  the  promotion  of  labor 
organization." 


244  EFFICIENCY 

What  then?  the  reader  may  say.  The  chief  weapon 
by  which  the  unions  can  win  for  labor  its  due  share 
of  the  national  prosperity  is  through  the  strike.  And 
can  we  approve  the  strike?  Every  one  suffers  during 
a  strike — the  employers  and  stockholders,  the  wage- 
earners  and  their  families,  and  the  general  public. 
The  total  economic  loss  to  the  community  from  strikes 
is  very  great;  and  the  cost  of  living  is  appreciably 
raised  thereby  for  all  of  us.  A  large  proportion  of 
the  strikes  are  unsuccessful,  sheer  waste  for  every- 
one. Even  when  the  workers  are  successful,  their 
gains  in  wages  are  often  not  enough  to  compensate 
them  for  the  losses  they  have  suffered.  And  always  a 
strike  engenders  bitterness,  class-division,  and  angry 
passions.  In  general,  strikers  in  America  have  exer- 
cised great  self-control,  and  have  been  guilty  of  rela- 
tively 'little  violence — such  violence  as  has  occurred 
being  usually  the  result  of  unfair  and  provocative 
conduct  on  the  part  of  the  employers.  But  certainly 
the  strike  is  at  best  a  hateful  thing,  to  be  tolerated 
only  if  it  is  the  only  means  available  for  the  attain- 
ment of  justice  for  the  workers. 

The  laboring  classes  believe,  almost  universally, 
that  it  is  a  necessary  and  therefore  a  legitimate 
weapon — in  the  last  resort,  if  employers  are  obdurate 
to  considerations  of  justice  and  humanity,  the  only 
available  method  of  obtaining  their  rights.  It  is, 
therefore,  useless  to  dwell  upon  the  evils  of  the  strike 
— which  every  one  admits.  If  the  workers  believe 
that  they  have  a  serious  grievance,  and  can  get  it 
remedied  in  no  other  way,  they  will  strike,  and  noth- 
ing but  the  use  of  the  power  of  military  mobilization 
can  make  them  work.  This  is  a  very  dangerous  power 
to  use,  and  would  probably  not  be  tolerated  in  this 
country  unless  public  sympathies  were  overwhelm- 


COLLECTIVE  BARGAINING  245 

ingly  against  the  strikers.  We  must  face  the  fact, 
then,  that  strikes  will  occur  from  time  to  time,  until 
the  workers  feel  that  they  have  their  fair  share  of  the 
profits — and  perhaps  of  the  control — of  industry,  and 
are  satisfied  with  the  conditions  and  hours  of  their 
work.  Or  until  some  other  method  proves  equally 
efficacious  for  the  attainment  of  these  ends. 

To  say  "equally  efficacious"  is  not  to  say  very 
much !  Strikes,  for  all  their  cost,  have  not  actually, 
as  yet,  accomplished  a  great  deal.  It  is  a  question 
whether  the  energy  spent  in  strikes  would  not  have 
accomplished  far  more  if  it  had  been  put  into  getting 
legislation  enacted.  The  wage-earning  classes  form 
the  largest  block  of  the  population;  if  they  could 
agree  upon  the  laws  they  want,  they  could  undoubt- 
edly get  them  upon  the  statute-books.  Why  should 
not  political  action,  in  a  democracy,  be  substituted 
for  economic  action? 

Undoubtedly  it  should.  The  era  of  strikes  must  be 
conceived  by  every  hopeful  American  as  a  transient 
era.  The  strike  is  a  form  of  coercion,  whereas  the 
principle  of  democracy  is  persuasion,  and  the  domi- 
nance of  enlightened  public  opinion.  The  strike  is  a 
method  by  which  one  group  seeks  to  win  its  end  with- 
out having  to  convince  the  majority  that  it  is  in  the 
right.  Might  does  not  make  right ;  and  the  victory  in 
a  strike  goes  to  the  stronger  side ;  not  necessarily,  and 
not,  perhaps,  in  a  majority  of  cases,  to  the  side  that 
is  in  the  right.  The  strike  is  a  form  of  private  war- 
fare, in  which  the  public  has  to  suffer  from  the  ina- 
bility of  the  two  groups  at  war  to  agree. 

When  we  contemplate  the  terrible  possibilities  of 
a  "general  strike,"  we  see  clearly  that  another  method 
of  settling  industrial  disputes  must  be  devised.  A 
strike  of  the  railroad  workers  throughout  the  country 


246  EFFICIENCY 

would  quickly  become  a  calamity  of  vast  proportions 
— babies  would  die  for  lack  of  milk  and  ice,  the  big 
cities  would  be  in  serious  straits  for  food  and  coal, 
the  whole  activity  of  the  country  would  be  paralyzed. 
A  general  strike  of  coal  miners  in  winter  would 
quickly  result  in  the  stoppage  of  trains,  and  actual 
freezing  to  death  in  the  cities.  If  the  workers  in  the 
key  industries  of  our  country  ever  unite  in  a  cause 
which  they  feel  to  be  just,  and  steel  themselves  to 
suffering  as  ruthlessly  as  the  fighting  nations  did  in 
the  Great  War,  the  disaster  to  the  nation  might  be 
even  greater  than  that  of  war. 

It  is  no  wonder  that  a  great  deal  of  agitation  has 
been  carried  on  for  compulsory  arbitration  of  labor 
disputes.  If  justice  can  be  secured  by  the  verdict  of 
an  impartial  tribunal  or  court,  all  the  suffering  and 
bitterness  and  economic  loss  caused  by  strikes  can 
be  saved.  Labor  can  be  sure  of  getting  its  due  even 
when  it  is  not  strong  enough  to  make  a  successful 
strike.  Other  disputes  are  settled  by  legal  means, 
why  not  these?  Surely  right,  not  might,  should  have 
the  deciding  voice. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  however,  it  is  impracticable  at 
present  to  compel  arbitration  in  these  matters.  The 
labor-unions  are  almost  all  violently  opposed  to  it; 
and  even  in  New  Zealand  and  Australia,  where  the 
wage-earners  once  welcomed  it,  they  have  lost  their 
faith  in  it.  It  has  not  actually  resulted  in  improving 
their  status;  and  while  once  it  was  thought  that  in 
these  lands  the  age  of  strikes  was  over,  they  have 
again  become  common.  So  that  in  1919  the  Federated 
Business  Men's  Organization  of  Australia  declared, 
"It  is  obvious  after  an  experience  of  twenty  years 
that  our  industrial  laws  have  lamentably  failed  to 
secure  industrial  peace." 


COLLECTIVE  BARGAINING  247 

If  compulsory  arbitration  is  not  successful  in  se- 
curing justice,  it  actually  works  out  in  favor  of  the 
employers.  Success  in  a  strike  demands  sudden  ac- 
tion. During  an  enforced  delay,  employers  can  be 
gathering  together  strike-breakers  and  preparing  to 
get  on  without  their  former  workers. 

At  any  rate,  to  compel  a  body  of  wage-earners  to 
accept  arbitration  by  a  body  which  they  distrust  is 
not  feasible.  Fines  cannot  be  collected  from  thou- 
sands of  poor  people,  men  cannot  be  imprisoned  by 
the  thousand,  nor  can  they  be  made  to  work,  save 
under  military  rule.  The  attempt  to  force  a  verdict, 
in  an  important  case,  upon  laborers  who  believed  it 
to  be  radically  unjust  would  be  to  invite  revolution. 

The  point  is  that  the  basic  matters  in  dispute  be- 
tween labor  and  capital — the  proper  wages,  hours, 
working  conditions,  and  division  of  control — are  non- 
justiciable.  There  are  no  generally  approved  prin- 
ciples from  which  to  decide  a  particular  case.  Labor 
wants  not  a  static  condition,  perpetuation  of  the 
status  quo,  but  progress  toward  better  conditions. 
The  so-called  impartial  judge,  however,  usually 
thinks  in  terms  of  the  existing  distribution  of  profits 
and  power;  his  verdicts  usually  tend  to  standardize 
conditions  at  their  present  unsatisfactory  level. 
Judges  and  arbitrators  seldom  have  the  laborer's 
point  of  view ;  they  are  apt  to  be  thinking  of  business 
prosperity,  reasonable  dividends,  the  public  conven- 
ience, rather  than  of  the  welfare  of  the  workers. 
The  public  is  instinctively  inclined  to  resent  the  extra 
cost  of  commodities  necessitated  by,  or  at  any  rate 
usually  resulting  from,  an  improvement  in  the  status 
of  the  wage-earners,  and  usually  thinks  of  them  as 
disturbers  of  the  peace.  Thus  the  workers  feel  that 
the  scales  are  weighted  against  them,  and  that  arbi- 


248  EFFICIENCY 

tration,  instead  of  getting  for  them  their  just  de- 
mands, actually  serves  as  a  means  of  keeping  them 
slaves  in  an  unjust  social  order. 

Certainly  peace  at  any  price  is  not  the  ideal.  The 
industrial  pacifists  must  realize  that  a  peace  resting 
upon  an  unjust  distribution  of  profits  and  power,  of 
inhumane  working  conditions,  cannot  be  a  lasting 
peace.  The  various  plans  for  conferences  and  com- 
mon decisions  within  an  industry — Shop  Committees, 
Industrial  Councils,  and  the  like,  seem  promising. 
An  opportunity  to  present  their  case  to  one  another, 
to  come  to  a  mutual  understanding,  to  participate  in 
policies  that  make  for  the  common  advantage,  can 
obviate  much  of  the  friction  between  employers  and 
wage-earners.  Investigation  and  mediation  by  out- 
side tribunals  may  often  be  useful.  But  in  the  pres- 
ent condition  of  industry,  obviously  a  transition 
situation,  we  must  hesitate  to  take  from  the  wage- 
earners  the  one  weapon  that  they  feel  they  can  depend 
upon  to  remedy  intolerable  conditions.  Wretched  as 
the  strike-weapon  is,  we  have  not  yet  worked  out  an 
industrial  order  in  which  it  is  safe  to  make  it  illegal. 

The  hope  for  the  future  lies  in  education — the  edu- 
cation of  the  workers  to  understand  their  own  needs 
and  duties  and  to  use  the  ballot  as  the  means  of  reme- 
dying their  wrongs;  the  education  of  the  employing 
class,  that  they  may  understand  the  laborers'  point 
of  view  and  put  into  operation  industrial  methods 
that  will  bring  about  a  diffused  prosperity  and  a  self- 
respecting  life  for  their  employees;  the  education  of 
the  general  public,  that  it  may  Understand  the  rights 
and  wrongs  of  the  intricate  industrial  problem  and 
put  its  weight  on  the  side  of  humanity  and  justice. 
Strikes,  "direct  action,"  economic  pressure — these  are 
war-methods;  they  must  in  time  give  way  to  the 


249 

methods  of  open  discussion  and  decision  by  the 
majority  vote.  What  stands  in  the  way  of  this  is — 
ignorance,  and  prejudice,  the  child  of  ignorance.  A 
better  and  longer  school-education,  a  more  wide- 
awake and  socially  useful  Church,  a  non-partisan,  or 
omni-partisan,  press,  these  are  to  be  the  means  of 
our  salvation.  In  the  meantime  we  must  be  content 
to  let  labor  meet  the  power  of  organized  business  with 
its  own  organized  power,  and  hope  that  through  their 
bargaining  and  bickering  some  genuine  progress  may 
be  made. 

It  is  also  to  be  hoped  that  the  labor-unions  will 
more  and  more  use  their  organized  power  not  merely 
to  wrest  higher  wages  and  humaner  working  con- 
ditions from  their  employers,  but  to  improve  the 
efficiency  of  their  members  and  to  co-operate  with 
capital  in  bettering  the  technique  of  production. 
They  are  at  present  mainly,  and  necessarily,  fighting- 
organizations.  The  gradual  satisfaction  of  their 
aspirations  for  labor  should  transform  them  ulti- 
mately into  constructive  agencies  of  great  value  for 
the  future  of  American  industry. 

SUGGESTED   READINGS 

J.  R.  Commons,  Trade-Unionism,  and  Labor  Problems. 

F.  T.   Carlton,   History   and  Problems    of   Organized  Labor; 

Organized  Labor  in  American  History. 
John  Mitchell,  Organized  Labor. 
Jane  Addams,  Newer  Ideals  of  Peace,  Chap.  V. 
C.  R.  Henderson,  The  Social  Spirit  in  America,  Chap.  IX. 
H.  R.  Seager,  Introduction  to  Economics,  Chap.  XXI. 
J.  G.  Brooks,  Labor's  Challenge  to  the  Social  Order. 

G.  G.  Groat,  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  Organized  Labor. 

T.  S.  Adams  and  H.  L.  Sumner,  Labor  Problems,  Chapters  VI. 

VII. 

W.  H.  Hamilton,  Current  Economic  Problems,  p.  577,  ff. 
C.  N.  Fay,  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  109,  p.  758. 
J.  P.  Frey,  in  International  Journal  of  Ethics,  vol.  28,  p.  485. 


CHAPTER  XXII 

MORALE 

DISPUTES  and  divergences  of  viewpoint  there  will 
always  be  in  industry,  as  in  every  other  field  of  co- 
operative action.  But  when  these  disputes  merge 
into  a  continuous  and  deep-seated  conflict  between 
labor  and  capital,  we  have  a  state  of  things  obviously 
destructive  of  efficiency.  The  maintenance  of  Ameri- 
can industry  and  commerce  upon  a  high  level  of  effi- 
ciency is  in  no  small  degree  dependent  upon  corps 
d'esprit,  team-play,  a  genuine  spirit  of  co-operation. 
And  that  is  dependent  upon  the  mental  attitude  of 
the  workers — what  we  have  in  recent  years  learned 
to  call  morale. 

Many  observers  declare  that  the  morale  of  Ameri- 
can wage-earners  has  been  lowered  in  recent  years. 
The  antagonism  between  their  ideals  and  the  policies 
of  their  employers  has  become  more  conscious. 
Workers  refuse  to  exert  themselves  greatly,  they 
repeat  the  phrases,  "take  your  time,"  "go  easy,"  "no 
hurry" ;  they  take  vacations  from  their  jobs  when  they 
feel  like  it,  they  are  less  and  less  docile  and  depend- 
able. One  writer  declares  that  "this  growing  reluc- 
tance of  wage-earners  to  give  more  than  they  get  is 
the  Achilles-heel  of  our  modern  industrial  system." 
Another  writer  puts  the  situation  thus:  "Let  us  re- 
member that  such  habits  of  industry  as  we  can  still 
count  on  were  established  under  an  earlier  order, 
when  the  relation  between  reward  and  effort  appeared. 

250 


MORALE  251 

closer,  in  the  skilled  trades,  and  when  the  unskilled 
workman,  illiterate  and  oppressed,  was  more  amen- 
able to  discipline.  We  are  trading  on  an  inherited 
capital  of  industrious  habits.  This  is  the  road  to 
bankruptcy,  unless  we  can  learn  to  create  similar 
habits  that  may  serve  for  the  future." 

Certainly  we  can  never  again  expect,  and  should 
never  want,  to  see  laborers  meek  and  spiritless,  with 
overseers  cracking  the  whip  over  them,  like  so  many 
"dumb,  driven  cattle."  That  is  not  a  thinkable 
American  solution  for  the  problem.  The  development 
of  morale  among  the  workers  must  come  through  the 
awaking  of  their  interest  in  their  work,  through  the 
tapping  of  new  sources  of  creative  energy,  and  the 
development  of  a  voluntary  code  of  honor,  and  tra- 
dition of  loyal  service,  like  that  which  exists  in  an 
army  that  believes  in  its  cause  and  in  its  leaders. 
The  workman  who  is  industrious  and  faithful  must 
command  the  admiration  of  his  fellows  instead  of 
their  suspicion.  The  slacker  and  floater  must  come  to 
be  regarded  with  contempt.  In  short,  morale  must 
be  created  by  the  active  attitude  of  the  mass  of  wage- 
earners  themselves,  and  cannot  be  imposed  upon  them 
from  without. 

To  some  extent,  this  tendency  to  work  slowly  and 
do  as  little  as  possible  for  his  wages,  this  lack  of 
interest  in  the  success  of  the  business  for  which  he 
is  working,  is  due  to  the  natural  laziness  and  selfish- 
ness to  which  man  is  prone;  in  so  far  it  can  only  be 
overcome  by  the  diffusion  of  higher  moral  or  reli- 
gious standards.  But  human  motives  and  attitudes 
are  largely  formed  by  environment;  and  the  wide- 
spread lack  of  morale  among  workers  is  to  a  large 
extent  the  result  of  external  causes  that  can  be  re- 
moved. The  situation  cannot  be  cured  by  preaching 


252  EFFICIENCY 

the  necessity  of  production,  or  by  scolding  at  labor. 
We  must  put  ourselves  in  the  place  of  the  workers 
and  consider  what  can  be  done  to  increase  their 
loyalty  and  enthusiasm  for  their  work. 

One  important  means  to  this  end,  alluded  to  in  an 
earlier  chapter,  is  the  extension  of  vocational  educa- 
tion. Interest  arises  through  an  intelligent  compre- 
hension of  the  task  one  is  performing,  and  a  realiza- 
tion of  its  relation  to  the  related  tasks  which  one's 
fellows  are  performing.  The  skilled  worker  is  far 
more  apt  to  put  his  heart  into  his  work  than  the 
untrained  laborer.  And  the  analyses  of  industrial 
processes  made  in  recent  years  by  physiologists  and 
technicians  reveal  an  enormous  waste  of  human  labor 
that  could  be  saved  by  teaching  the  humblest  manual 
workers  the  best  way  to  perform  their  tasks.  For 
the  positions  requiring  more  thought  and  decision, 
the  necessity  of  trained  intelligence  is  even  more 
obvious.  But  a»  yet  a  very  small  per  cent  of 
American  wage-earners  receive  any  sort  of  scientific 
training  for  their  work. 

This  is  strikingly  the  situation  in  agriculture.  The 
farmers,  except  for  the  "hired  men,"  are  not  "wage- 
earners."  But  they  are  to  an  increasing  extent 
dependent  upon  the  big  industrial  and  commercial 
concerns — the  packing  houses,  the  milk  distributors, 
the  middlemen,  and  brokers;  and  those  who  do  not 
own  their  farms  have  to  pay  increasingly  high  rents. 
Many  of  them  have  felt  in  recent  years  that  the  dice 
were  weighted  against  them,  that  the  prices  which 
they  are  forced  to  pay  for  seed  and  feed  and  fertilizers 
and  equipment,  coupled  with  the  price  at  which  they 
were  obliged  to  sell  their  produce,  left  them  too  little 
opportunity  for  an  honest  living.  The  result  has 
been,  in  some  quarters,  a  lowering  of  morale  among 


MOEALE  253 

farmers,  and  a  disinclination  of  our  young  people  to 
take  up  the  farm-life.  And  yet  the  trained  farmers 
have  been  making,  in  general,  good  profits.  Govern- 
ment bulletins,  experimental  stations,  agricultural 
colleges,  and  agricultural  courses  in  the  public 
schools,  are  doing  a  good  deal  toward  bringing  in  the 
age  of  scientific  farming.  But  we  have,  as  a  nation, 
a  discouragingly  long  way  yet  to  go. 

Another  extremely  important  means  toward  the 
development  of  morale  is  vocational  guidance.  Our 
present  methods  of  finding  the  right  person  for  every 
job  and  the  right  job  for  every  person  are,  in  general, 
quite  rudimentary.  A  son  drifts  into  the  business  of 
his  father.  An  employer  picks  a  man  from  a  number 
of  applicants,  on  the  basis  of  his  momentary  impres- 
sion, or  because  he  is  vaguely  recommended  by  some- 
one. The  result  is  a  trial  and  error  method,  with 
square  pegs  constantly  trying  to  fit  themselves  into 
round  holes.  A  large  proportion  of  our  population 
never  find  the  work  for  which,  by  temperament  and 
ability,  they  are  actually  best  fitted.  No  one  can 
estimate  how  much  enthusiasm,  how  much  ability, 
how  much  real  genius,  is  wasted  because  never 
applied  to  its  proper  field.  The  universal  use  in  the 
public  schools  of  careful  psychological  tests,  and  the 
steering  of  boys  and  girls  into  the  lines  of  study,  and 
later  into  the  vocations,  for  which  nature  has  adapted 
them,  will  mean  not  only  a  far  more  general  interest 
and  happiness  in  work,  but  an  incalculable  increase 
in  its  productivity,  both  in  quantity  and  quality. 

In  all  sorts  of  ways  up-to-date  employers  are  seek- 
ing to  cultivate  good-will  among  their  workers,  and 
to  utilize  their  instinct  of  workmanship.  They  are 
encouraging  their  employees  to  get  acquainted  with 
one  another,  and  to  have  social  good  times.  They  are 


254  EFFICIENCY 

providing  them  with  reading-rooms,  rest-rooms,  ball- 
fields,  gymnasiums.  They  are  giving  them  a  chance 
to  learn  about  the  various  departments  of  the  busi- 
ness and  so  to  feel  a  pride  in  it.  They  are  encourag- 
ing them  to  hand  in  "suggestions."  They  are  employ- 
ing "labor  managers,"  to  adjust  their  minor  griev- 
ances and  to  manifest  their  employers'  interest  in 
their  comfort. 

But  all  this  fails  to  go  to  the  root  of  the  matter. 
The  fundamental  reason  why  the  wage-earner  is  so 
often  listless  and  indifferent  to  the  interests  of  his 
employer  is  precisely  because  they  are  his  employer's 
interests,  and  not  his.  If  our  society  expects  to  get 
loyalty  from  the  wage-earner,  it  must  treat  him  not 
as  a  mere  "hand,"  a  seller  of  labor,  but  as  an  integral 
part  of  the  industrial  structure.  The  fact  is  that  at 
present  most  American  business  is  run  solely  in  the 
interests  of  owners'  profits,  with  only  that  degree  of 
regard  which  is  expedient,  for  the  interest  of  either 
the  public  or  the  workers.  "Business  prosperity" — 
which  means  large  profits  to  the  owners — is  the  scale 
by  which  even  kindness  to  employees  is  measured. 
The  workers,  gradually  becoming  more  intelligent 
and  observant,  are  realizing  this  more  and  more 
keenly,  and  becoming  more  resentful  and  class- 
conscious. 

Take  the  matter  of  scarcity  of  employment.  What 
enthusiasm  for  his  work  can  a  wage-earner  have  when 
he  knows  that  he  may  be  discharged  at  any  time  at 
the  will  of  his  employer,  no  matter  how  faithful  or 
even  how  efficient  his  work?  A  wave  of  business 
depression  occurs ;  or  the  employers  in  a  given  indus- 
try simply  decide  to  curtail  production  in  order  to 
raise  the  price  of  their  product.  Men  are  turned  off 
by  the  score  or  by  the  hundred.  It  is  not  easy  for 


MORALE  255 

them  to  get  other  employment.  Their  families  suffer 
from  want.  Is  it  any  wonder  that  they  have  a  low 
morale?  In  the  words  of  a  recent  student  of  the 
situation,  "If  we  can  devise  nothing  better  than  the 
regulation  of  industrial  relations  by  commercial 
principles  alone,  if  we  cannot  rid  ourselves  of  the 
preconception  that  labor  is  a  commodity,  to  be  taken 
from  the  market  when  needed  and  thrown  back 
when  not  needed,  we  may  as  well  prepare  ourselves 
for  a  period  of  progressive  disintegration  of  labor 
efficiency." 

As  matters  stand,  the  zealous  and  faithful  worker 
is  naturally  regarded  by  his  fellows  as  on  the  em- 
ployer's side.  He  gets  through  with  work  quickly 
which  might  be  made  to  last  longer,  and  thus  in- 
creases the  risk  of  future  unemployment.  Further- 
more, he  sets  a  pace  which  will  be  demanded  of  his 
fellows,  compelling  them  also  to  use  up  too  soon  the 
available  work.  This  fear  of  losing  their  jobs  haunts 
many  wage-earners  day  and  night;  it  is  the  cause  of 
much  of  their  unrest,  and  of  much  of  their  deliberate 
slacking.  The  development  of  morale  requires 
security  of  employment  for  the  faithful  worker. 
The  problem  is  a  difficult  one  to  solve.  But  some 
solution  of  it  better  than  the  present  is  demanded, 
not  only  from  humane  considerations,  but  for  the 
building  up  of  an  efficient  industrial  system. 

Moreover,  underpaid  workers  can  hardly  be  ex- 
pected to  feel  a  zest  for  strenuous  production  when 
they  see  the  profits  of  their  energy  going  into  the 
pockets  of  their  already  rich  employers.  The  "scien- 
tific management"  of  efficiency-engineers  is  silently 
or  openly  opposed  by  laborers  because  they  find  the 
speeding  up  process  inuring  chiefly,  if  not  wholly,  to 
the  benefit  of  the  stockholders.  Conversely,  firms 


256  EFFICIENCY 

that  have  increased  the  wages  of  their  employees  have 
sometimes  found  their  profits  greater  than  ever, 
through  the  reduction  in  labor  turnover  and  the  in- 
creased good- will  and  energy  of  their  workers.  What 
constitutes  a  "fair  wage"  is,  of  course,  always  a  moot 
question.  But  it  can  be  laid  down  as  an  axiom  that 
such  a  distribution  of  the  national  income  as  we  saw 
in  an  earlier  chapter  to  prevail  at  present  will  not 
call  out  anywhere  near  the  maximum  of  energy  from 
the  nation's  workers. 

Even,  however,  if  wages  are  generous,  it  is  doubt- 
ful if  labor  will  give  of  its  best  in  the  years  ahead  of 
us  without  a  greater  stake  in  the  enterprises  upon 
which  it  is  engaged.  We.  urge  the  "free  play  of 
initiative"  as  essential  to  efficient  business.  But  we 
give  opportunity  for  such  exercise  of  initiative  to  a 
comparative  few,  in  our  industrial  system.  Much 
more  thought  and  enthusiasm  is  devoted  to  work  when 
the  workers  have  a  share  in  the  management.  To 
quote  a  recent  acute  observer,  "The  wage  incentive 
and  other  stimuli,  such  as  profit-sharing,  do  not  make 
the  workers  feel  fundamentally  interested  in  their 
tasks.  If  the  full  productive  capacity  which  is  at 
this  time  both  consciously  and  unconsciously  with- 
held from  society  is  ever  to  be  released,  labor  must 
participate  in  the  conduct  of  industry." 

This  development  of  democracy  in  industry  should 
only  take  place  as  the  workers  are  educated  to  under- 
stand both  their  own  individual  tasks  and  the  wider 
economic  principles  that  underlie  the  efficient  con- 
duct of  business.  It  must  be  introduced  with  caution, 
step  by  step,  lest  a  mass  of  ignorant  laborers  bring 
disaster  upon  a  business  through  their  advocacy  of 
mistaken  policies.  But  it  is  a  goal  to  work  toward. 
The  older  conception,  that  an  industry  belongs  ex- 


MORALE  257 

clusively  to  those  who  furnish  the  capital,  and  may 
be  run  precisely  as  they  please,  with  the  workers 
merely  a  part  of  the  necessary  machinery,  must  give 
way  to  the  conception  that  the  workers  have  an  in- 
herent right  to  responsibilities  and  power.  Undoubt- 
edly, this  participation  by  the  wage-earners  in  the 
management  of  our  industries,  if  coupled  with  proper 
education  and  vocational  guidance,  and  sponsored  by 
the  labor-unions,  could  greatly  accelerate  the  develop- 
ment of  a  scientific  technique  and  result  in  a  great 
increase  in  output. 

The  fact  is  that  the  autocratic  conduct  of  industry, 
like  the  autocratic  control  of  nations,  may  be  benevo- 
lent and  efficient,  but  cannot  be  trusted  to  be  so.  We 
have  many  instances  of  paternalistic  benevolence — 
welfare  work,  improvement  of  working  conditions, 
voluntary  profit-sharing  or  distributing  of  bonuses — 
that  hearten  the  observer  of  American  business.  But 
on  the  other  hand,  we  have  conspicuous  instances 
such  as  the  steel  industry,  where,  as  a  distinguished 
economist  has  recently  put  it,  "the  mass  of  workers 
are  driven  as  large  numbers  of  laborers,  whether  slave 
or  free,  have  scarcely  before  in  human  history  been 
driven." 

It  is  with  such  instances  in  mind  that  President 
Wilson,  in  his  First  Inaugural,  said,  "We  have  been 
proud  of  our  industrial  achievements,  but  we  have 
not  stopped  thoughtfully  enough  to  count  the  human 
cost,  the  cost  of  lives  snuffed  out,  of  energies  over- 
taxed and  broken,  the  fearful  physical  and  spiritual 
cost  to  the  men  and  women  and  children  upon  whom 
the  dead  weight  and  burden  of  it  all  has  fallen  piti- 
lessly the  years  through." 

Real  efficiency  is  something ,  bigger  than  financial 
efficiency;  the  ability  to  pay  big  dividends,  or  even 


258  EFFICIENCY 

to  produce  at  low  cost,  is  only  part  of  the  story.  Real 
efficiency  is  the  ratio  between  the  human  effort  and 
sacrifice  given,  and  the  results  in  production.  To 
make  cheaper  goods  at  the  cost  of  human  happiness 
is  not  real  efficiency.  Nor,  in  the  long  run,  can  this 
kind  of  financial  efficiency  last;  inhumane  methods 
are  bound  to  generate  dissatisfaction  and  slackness, 
if  not  actual  sabotage.  But  unhappily,  human  nature 
is  shortsighted ;  and  there  is  likely  to  be  a  perpetual 
tendency  on  the  part  of  employers  to  slight  the 
claims  of  such  abstract  ideals  as  Liberty,  Equality, 
and  Democracy,  in  their  interest  in  immediate  finan- 
cial returns.  For  this  evil  there  seems  to  be  no  per- 
manent remedy  save  some  form  of  democratic  con- 
trol over  the  power  of  capital. 

After  all,  "the  good  will  of  labor  is  the  most  valu- 
able asset  in  business."  It  is  foolish  to  expect  the 
utmost  from  workers  when  their  attitude  is  one  of 
docile,  unthinking  obedience,  still  more  foolish  when 
their  attitude  has  become  that  of  resentment  and 
bitterness.  In  the  chaos  of  plans  and  suggestions 
and  experiments,  we  must  expect  a  long  period  of 
clashing  ideas,  with  much  friction  and  much  loss  to 
production.  But  in  all  our  musings  on  the  tangled 
situation,  we  must  never  forget  that  the  workers  of 
the  country  must  be  fairly  treated,  treated  as  self- 
respecting  citizens;  more  than  that,  they  must,  if 
possible,  be  led  to  feel  that  they  are  fairly  treated. 
For  only  so  can  we  have  a  high  morale  in  business; 
and  without  a  high  morale  we  can  have  neither  happi- 
ness nor  efficiency. 

SUGGESTED  READINGS 

H.  Schneider,  Education  for  Industrial  Workers. 
J.  S.  Taylor,  Handbook  of  Vocational  Education. 
H.  S.  Person,  Industrial  Education. 


MORALE  259 

Meyer  Bloomfield,  The  Vocational  Guidance  of  Youth. 

J.  R.  Commons,  Industrial  Goodwill. 

R.  F.  Hoxie,  Scientific  Management  and  Labor. 

Helen  Marot,  The  Creative  Impulse  in  Industry. 

Ordway  Tead,  Instincts  in  Industry. 

H.  F.  Ward,  The  New  Social  Order,  Chap.  IV. 

F.  W.  Taylor,  Principles  of  Scientific  Management. 

H.  N.  Gautt,  Organizing  for  Work. 

F.  A.  Cleveland,  Organized  Democracy,  Chap.  XXXV. 

E.  M.  Friedman,  etc.,  American  Problems  of  Reconstruction, 

Chap.  VII. 
W.  C.  RedQeld,  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  110,  p.  411. 


CHAPTER  XXIII 

CONSERVATION 

PROUD  as  we  Americans  are  apt  to  be  of  our  efficiency 
in  business,  it  is  probably  safe  to  say  that,  by  con- 
trast with  an  ideal  mechanism  of  production  and 
distribution,  our  existing  processes  are  not  more  than 
ten  per  cent  efficient.  Few  of  our  industries  are 
much  more  than  at  the  beginning  of  the  development 
of  their  technique.  The  discoveries  and  inventions 
of  modern  science,  the  education  of  human  skill,  the 
organization  of  human  effort,  open  endless  vistas  of 
progress  before  us.  Eventually,  when  every  able- 
bodied  citizen  works,  a  far  shorter  working  day 
should  suffice  for  a  satisfaction  of  human  needs  far 
above  the  present  average  standard  of  life.  Even 
now,  if  we  had  exercised  a  wise  prudence  in  the  de- 
veloping of  our  national  estate,  we  should  be  far 
richer  than  we  are. 

The  inertia  of  the  human  mind — even  of  the 
American  mind — is  great.  Trade  journals  and  asso- 
ciations are  doing  a  good  deal  to  advertise  the  more 
efficient  methods;  and  there  is  a  visible  improvement 
from  year  to  year.  But  the  opposition  to  a  scientific 
organization  of  the  national  industry  and  commerce, 
and  to  the  wise  conservation  of  our  resources,  is  more 
than  a  stupid  conservatism ;  it  comes  largely  from  the 
deliberate  opposition  of  individuals  and  groups  that 
profit  by  the  general  loss.  The  fact  is  that  business 
is  run  too  exclusively  to  benefit  the  pocket-books  of 

260 


CONSERVATION  261 

the  owners,  and  too  little  as  a  public  service.  Unhap- 
pily, the  two  ends  often  conflict. 

It  is  doubtful  if  America  has  any  more  important 
duty  than  to  conserve  with  a  reasonable  prudence  the 
natural  resources  of  the  continent.  Yet  we  have 
actually  been  wasting  these  resources  with  criminal 
prodigality.  There  has  been  no  intelligent,  compre- 
hensive plan  for  this  utilization.  The  nation's  heri- 
tage has  been  allowed,  for  the  most  part,  to  fall  into 
the  hands  of  private  owners;  and  these  owners  have 
been  chiefly  concerned  with  making  immediate  profits 
for  themselves  rather  than  with  conserving  this  in- 
heritance for  future  generations. 

Take,  for  example,  the  destruction  of  our  forests. 
There  were  over  800,000,000  acres  of  forests  in  this 
country  when  the  white  men  came.  Five-sixths  of 
this  area  has  now  been  cut  over,  culled,  or  burned. 
We  are  now  taking  twenty-six  billion  cubic  feet  of 
wood  out  of  our  forests  annually,  and  growing  only 
six  billion  cubic  feet  to  replace  what  we  take.  The 
depletion  of  the  lumber  supply  has  already  seriously 
affected  the  whole  population.  Hundreds  of  thou- 
sands of  needed  homes  remain  unbuilt  because  of  the 
high  price  of  lumber.  Many  industries  have  been 
seriously  crippled.  A  report  of  the  United  States 
Forest  Service,  in  August,  1920,  contains  the  follow- 
ing statements:  "The  timber  of  the  country  as  a 
whole  is  being  used  and  destroyed  four  times  as  fast 
as  new  timber  is  growing;  and  the  saw  timber,  the 
most  valuable  and  most  needed  part  of  the  stand, 
is  being  cut  five  and  one-half  times  as  fast  as  it  is 
produced.  More  than  80,000,000  acres  of  land  that 
should  be  growing  timber  is  unproductive  waste, 
much  more  is  only  partially  productive,  and  fires  are 
Steadily  causing  further  deterioration." 


262  EFFICIENCY 

The  Forest  Service  deserves  the  highest  praise  for 
what  it  has  done.  But  the  policy  of  forest-reserva- 
tion came  too  late  to  save  the  wanton  despoiling  of 
the  greater  part  of  our  timber-supply.  Methods  of 
cutting  have  been  exceedingly  wasteful,  reforestation 
has  been  neglected,  and  forest  fires  have  been  allowed 
to  complete  the  destruction.  Altogether,  about  ten 
million  acres  of  forest  are  devastated  annually  by 
fires — a  yearly  loss  of  between  one  and  two  hundred 
million  dollars'  worth  of  the  national  wealth.  About 
forty  billion  feet,  board  measure,  of  merchantable 
lumber  are  cut  annually,  and  another  seventy  billion 
are  wasted  in  the  forest  and  at  the  mill  in  getting  it ! 
In  a  comparatively  few  years  more,  at  this  rate,  our 
reserves  will  be  nearly  exhausted. 

Moreover,  an  expert  has  recently  estimated  that 
"in  the  yellow  pine  belt  the  values  in  rosin,  turpen- 
tine, ethyl  alcohol,  pine  oil,  tar,  charcoal,  and  paper- 
stock  lost  in  the  waste  are  three  or  four  times  the 
value  of  the  lumber  produced.  Enough  yellow-pine 
pulp-wood  is  consumed  in  burners,  or  left  to  rot,  to 
make  double  the  total  tonnage  of  paper  produced  in 
the  United  States." 

This  is  what  our  reckless  individualism  has  brought 
us  to!  In  Europe,  forest-cutting  is  carefully  regu- 
lated by  the  various  nations,  so  that  there  may  be  as 
little  waste  as  possible,  and  no  depletion  of  the  sup- 
ply. Fortunately,  it  is  never  too  late  to  plant  forests. 
There  are  hundreds  of  millions  of  acres  of  land  in  our 
country,  not  suitable  for  other  purposes,  upon  which 
enough  timber  can  be  grown  to  meet  our  needs.  What 
is  wanted  is  a  comprehensive  national  policy,  strict 
regulation  of  timber!cutting,  and  a  greatly  increased 
organization  for  fire-patrol. 

Forests  can  be  replaced,  in  time.    But  the  wasteful 


CONSERVATION  263 

destruction  of  oil  and  coal  is  irremediable.  The 
owners  of  oil-wells,  and  the  distributors  of  oil,  have 
made  their  thousands  of  millions  of  dollars;  but  at 
a  cost  to  posterity  of  which  we  should  be  deeply 
ashamed.  In  the  words  of  an  American  business  man 
who  has  studied  the  situation:  "The  wastes  in  our 
petroleum  industry  have  been  shocking  and  stupen- 
dous. Fields  are  abandoned  with  from  thirty  to 
ninety  per  cent  of  the  oil  still  underground;  vast 
areas  have  been  ruined  by  admitting  water  into  the 
oil  sands ;  fires  take  heavy  toll.  In  all,  not  more  than 
twenty-five  per  cent  of  the  oil  underground  reaches 
the  pipe-line,  and  less  than  half  of  that  is  utilized  to 
the  best  advantage." 

The  United  States  Geological  Survey  has  recently 
estimated  that  our  natural  oil  is  already  more  than 
forty  per  cent  exhausted,  and  that  the  native  supply 
is  not  likely  to  last  more  than  sixteen  years  longer. 
Our  natural  gas  is  likewise  approaching  exhaustion. 
A  billion  feet  a  day  have  been  allowed  to  escape.  An 
expert  has  lately  told  us  that  we  have  wasted  more 
natural  gas  than  we  have  used. 

However  accurate  these  estimates  may  or  may  not 
be,  it  is  certain  that  our  oil-supplies,  and  our  supplies 
of  natural  gas,  will  be  practically  exhausted  before 
many  years  have  passed.  The  large  wastes  represent 
a  loss  of  wealth  that  can  never  be  replaced.  So  it  is, 
likewise,  with  our  coal-supplies,  which  will  last 
longer,  but  which  will  be  exhausted,  at  best,  within 
a  brief  period,  as  human  history  goes.  Mining- 
methods  are  so  wasteful  that  one  expert  declares  that 
in  West  Virginia  alone  "for  twenty  years  the  waste 
has  been  equivalent  to  dumping  each  minute  a  forty- 
five  ton  car  of  coal  into  an  abyss  from  which  it  can 
never  be  recovered." 


264  EFFICIENCY 

Another  student  of  the  situation  points  out  that 
"as  business  is  now  organized  it  is  actually  more 
profitable  to  waste  nearly  50  per  cent  of  the  coal  that 
is  mined  than  to  preserve  it  by  standardized  methods 
of  operation.  If  this  situation  persists  it  is  probable 
that  the  fuel  supply  of  the  country  will  be  entirely 
exhausted  in  100  years.  Under  the  present  'business- 
like bungling/  approximately  500,000,000  tons  of 
coal  are  lost  per  year.  The  only  remedy  is  a  thor- 
ough reformation  of  mining  methods  by  experts  in 
the  field,  not  by  operators  who  see  no  further  than 
their  own  immediate  interests  in  profits." 

Indeed,  a  large  proportion  of  the  coal  that  is  now 
transported  on  the  railways  ought  to  be  transformed 
at  the  collieries  into  its  various  derivatives.  The 
processes  now  available  yield  for  every  ton  of  raw 
coal  up  to  1,500  pounds  of  smokeless,  dustless  arti- 
ficial anthracite,  together  with  from  7,000  to  10,000 
cubic  feet  of  fuel  gas.  In  addition,  valuable  by- 
products are  recovered:  some  twenty  or  twenty-five 
pounds  of  ammonium  sulphate,  excellent  for  fer- 
tilizer; from  one  and  a  half  to  three  gallons  of  benzol, 
a  substitute  for  gasoline;  about  eight  gallons  of  coal 
tar,  from  which,  as  we  all  know,  an  endless  number 
of  extremely  important  products  are  made,  including 
the  aniline  dyes,  perfumes,  flavors,  drugs,  and  explo- 
sives. The  value  of  these  various  products  is  fifteen 
or  twenty  times  the  value  of  the  raw  coal  from  which 
they  were  made.  The  processes  by  which  they  are 
made  are 'well  known.  But  still  these  potentialities 
are,  for  the  most  part,  wasted.  Even  in  the  plants 
where  coke  and  gas  are  made,  the  valuable  by- 
products are  often  lost. 

Besides  the  recovery  of  these  by-products,  the  plan 
of  splitting  up  the  coal  at  the  mines  has  other  great 


CONSERVATION  265 

advantages.  For  one  thing,  the  mines  could  then  be 
operated  continuously  instead  of,  as  now,  with  a  great 
seasonal  fluctuation.  The  average  coal-mine  is  idle 
about  one-third  of  the  year  now,  because  of  the  falling 
off  of  demand  in  the  summer  and  the  difficulty  of 
storing  great  quantities  of  coal.  Some  600,000  men 
work,  on  an  average,  about  two  hundred  days  in  the 
year,  and  are  out  of  work  the  rest  of  the  time,  unless 
they  can  find  some  other  job.  If  the  mines  were 
worked  continuously,  400,000  men  would  suffice ;  they 
would  be  steadily  employed,  and  the  other  200,000 
men  released  for  productive  work  elsewhere. 

Incidentally,  the  smoke  caused  by  the  burning  of 
raw  coal  would  be  eliminated,  and  the  damage  done 
by  smoke  to  property  and  health — estimated  at  over 
a  billion  dollars  a  year — would  be  ended.  And  think 
how  much  pleasanter  our  cities  would  be  to  live  in, 
and  how  much  more  beautiful,  if  the  smoke  were 
done  away  with. 

Moreover,  if  the  gas  produced  at  the  collieries  were 
piped  to  the  nearest  cities,  and  only  the  smokeless  fuel 
shipped,  the  number  of  coal-cars  needed  could  be 
greatly  reduced,  and  the  railways  freed  from  conges- 
tion. Of  course  it  is  profitable  to  the  railway-owners 
— who  are  largely  also  the  mine-owners,  or  hand  in 
glove  with  them — to  haul  these  thousands  of  carloads 
of  raw  coal,  together  with  the  dirt,  slate,  and  water 
that  the  shipments  contain,  half  way  across  the  con- 
tinent. But  it  is  not  economical  from  the  public 
point  of  view. 

Indeed,  a  large  part  even  of  this  hauling  of  fuel 
would  be  done  away  with  if  it  were  to  be  burned  near 
the  collieries  for  the  generation  of  electric  power. 
Transmission-wires  could  take  this  power  to  the  fac- 
tories at  a  great  ultimate  saving  of  energy.  This 


266  EFFICIENCY 

same  system  of  transmission  would  be  available  for 
the  hydro-electric  power  which  must  ultimately,  it 
would  seem,  take  the  place  of  power  produced  from 
coal. 

We  must  not  blame  the  coal-operators  too  severely 
for  their  lack  of  social  vision.  So  long  as  they  can 
make  large  profits  by  existing  methods  they  can 
hardly  be  expected  to  think  in  terms  of  the  welfare 
of  the  public  and  of  future  generations.  The  guiding- 
star  of  almost  all  business  is — profits.  If  a  public 
service  is  done,  well  and  good.  But  how  many  of  our 
business  men  sacrifice  their  opportunities  for  making 
money  out  of  a  disinterested  regard  for  the  public 
good?  Some  do;  and  they  are  greatly  to  be  honored. 
But  in  general,  the  public  must  look  out  for  itself. 
The  public,  of  course,  is  mostly  ignorant,  and  kept 
in  ignorance,  of  the  facts.  And  all  attempts  at  public 
regulation  of  business  are  vigorously  opposed.  Dis- 
aster is  predicted;  the  evils  of  democratic  inter- 
ference with  private  business  are  eloquently  de- 
scribed. Nevertheless,  the  public  must  learn  how  to 
conserve  its  interests.  Until  it  does,  we  shall  have 
not  only  much  profiteering — which  is  not  so  serious 
a  matter,  after  all,  since  some  one  gets  the  wealth — 
but  much  actual  waste  of  human  effort  and  of  valu- 
able and  irreplaceable  natural  resources. 

The  growth  of  democracy  in  industry  will  undoubt- 
edly improve  matters.  Constant  pronouncements  are 
being  made  by  organized  labor,  like  that  of  the 
twenty-seventh  Convention  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers:  "The  incomparable  natural  resources  of 
America,  particularly  those  of  timber  and  coal,  are 
being  despoiled  under  a  system  of  production  which 
wastes  from  thirty-three  to  fifty  per  cent  of  these  re- 
sources in  order  that  the  maximum  amount  of  divi- 


CONSERVATION  267 

(lends  may  accrue  to  those  who  have  secured  owner- 
ship of  these  indispensable  commodities.  Our  coal 
resources  are  the  birthright  of  the  American  people 
for  all  time  to  come ;  and  we  hold  that  it  is  the  imme- 
diate duty  of  the  American  people  to  prevent  the 
profligate  waste  that  is  taking  place  under  private 
ownership  of  these  resources." 

The  older  countries  cannot,  of  course,  afford  to 
waste  natural  products  as  lavishly  as  we.  We  have 
had  so  much  to  use  that  we  have  not  realized  that  we 
were  squandering  our  inheritance.  But  the  day  of 
reckoning  is  drawing  near.  Our  grandchildren  will 
bitterly  reprove  our  selfish  shortsightedness.  We 
must,  then,  find  men  of  vision,  experts  in  their  several 
fields.  We  must  draw  up  a  national  plan  for  the 
prudent  utilization  of  the  resources  that  remain  to 
us,  and  insist  that  private  interests  subordinate  them- 
selves to  this  plan. 

Such  a  comprehensive  plan  formed  a  part  of  the 
program  of  neither  of  the  great  political  parties  at 
the  last  election;  we  have  a  way,  common  to  all 
democracies,  of  getting  excited  over  trivial  issues  and 
ignoring  the  really  vital  matters.  No  doubt  there  are 
those  who  exercise  their  skill  in  thus  diverting  public 
attention,  for  their  own  reasons.  But  if  the  poli- 
ticians will  not  take  up  this  matter,  the  ear  of  the 
public  must  be  reached  by  other  channels,  that  we 
may  salvage  what  remains  to  us  of  our  fast  vanishing 
heritage. 

We  should,  for  one  thing,  greatly  accelerate  the 
rate  at  which  our  water-power  is  being  developed,  in 
order  to  save  our  dwindling  supplies  of  coal.  At 
present  less  than  five  per  cent  of  our  available  water- 
power  is  utilized.  The  total  supply  is  estimated  at 
two  hundred  million  horse-power — enough  energy  to 


268  EFFICIENCY 

do  all  the  present  mechanical  work  of  the  country, 
but  not  enough  for  all  its  future  needs.  There  is  peat 
available,  there  is  lignite;  but  the  supply  of  these  is 
likewise  limited.  Where  future  generations  will  get 
all  the  energy  they  need,  and  the  heat,  and  the  light, 
no  one  now  can  say.  All  the  more  reason,  then,  for 
making  our  coal  last  as  long  as  possible. 

A  few  great  corporations  have  been  buying  up 
water-power  sites;  and  there  are  signs  that  we  may 
have  before  very  long  a  gigantic  water-power  trust, 
which,  when  oil  and  coal  are  approaching  exhaustion, 
might  easily  become  the  dominating  power  in  Ameri- 
can industry.  For  without  power  nothing  can  be 
done.  It  is  of  the  utmost  importance  that  the  nation 
should  keep  its  water-power  under  public  control, 
that  it  may  be  utilized  in  the  public  interest  instead 
of  for  the  benefit  of  a  small  group  of  people. 

Parallel  with  water-power  development  should  go 
the  effort  to  make  our  streams  navigable,  and  create 
a  system  of  connecting  canals.  Water-borne  traffic 
consumes  less  than  half  as  much  energy  as  freight 
carried  by  rail.  If  at  the  same  time  we  improve  our 
highways — only  about  twelve  per  cent  of  our  roads 
are  as  yet  improved  by  any  sort  of  surfacing — we  can 
save  many  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars  a  year. 
In  the  face  of  all  this  need  for  work,  the  continual 
involuntary  unemployment  of  thousands  of  men 
caused  by  the  clumsiness  of  our  industrial  system  is 
seen  to  have  not  only  a  personal  but  a  public  aspect. 
We  need  the  labors  of  these  men,  at  once,  and  badly. 

The  term  conservation  may  well  be  stretched  to 
include  the  conservation  of  public  health  and  life, 
and  all  conservation  of  human  effort.  The  move- 
ments to  eliminate  preventable  accidents,  to  eradicate 
the  diseases  that  can  be  stamped  out  by  concentrated 


CONSERVATION  269 

control,  the  child-labor  movement,  the  spread  of  the 
use  of  labor-saving  devices,  the  development  of  scien- 
tific management,  the  diminishing  of  friction  between 
the  members  of  the  industrial  mechanism — all  this, 
and  much  more,  might  be  covered  by  the  term.  But 
these  movements  we  have  discussed  in  other  chapters. 
What  we  are  here  specifically  concerned  with  is  the 
prudent  use  of  the  raw  materials  with  which  nature 
has  so  generously  endowed  us. 

The  leaders  of  our  national  life  have  not  failed  to 
warn  us  of  our  extravagance.  Roosevelt  gave  stren- 
uous efforts  to  make  Conservation  one  of  our  Ameri- 
can ideals.  "It  is  time  we  should  wake  up  the  coun- 
try/' he  said  in  1910,  "to  the  need  of  using  foresight 
and  common  sense  as  regards  our  natural  resources. 
We  of  this  generation  hold  the  land  in  part  for  the 
use  of  the  next  generation  and  not  exclusively  for  our 
own  selfish  enjoyment." 

Gifford  Pinchot,  former  chief  forester  of  the  United 
States,  has  put  the  case  even  more  trenchantly :  "We 
are  prosperous  because  our  forefathers  bequeathed 
to  us  a  land  of  marvellous  resources.  Shall  we  con- 
serve those  resources,  and  in  our  turn  transmit  them, 
still  unexhausted,  to  our  descendants?  Unless  we  do, 
those  who  come  after  us  will  have  to  pay  the  price  of 
misery,  degradation  and  failure  for  the  progress  and 
prosperity  of  our  day.  .  .  .  Business  prudence  and 
business  common-sense  indicate  as  strongly  as  any- 
thing can  the  absolute  necessity  of  a  change  in  point 
of  view  on  the  part  of  the  people  of  the  United  States 
regarding  their  natural  resources.  The  way  we  have 
been  handling  them  is  not  good  business.  Purely  on 
the  side  of  dollars  and  cents,  it  is  not  good  business 
to  kill  the  goose  that  lays  the  golden  egg — to  burn  up 
half  our  forests,  to  waste  our  coal,  and  to  remove 


270  EFFICIENCY 

from  under  the  feet  of  those  who  are  coming  after 
us  the  opportunity  for  equal  happiness  with  our- 
selves." 

As  this  chapter  is  being  revised  for  the  press,  the 
February,  1921,  number  of  the  Atlantic  Monthly 
appears,  with  a  vigorous  article  by  a  chemical  engi- 
neer of  wide  experience,  who  sums  up  his  conclusions 
as  follows:  "We  need  sadly  to  develop  a  national 
common-sense,  and  to  apply  it  to  the  spending  of  our 
natural  resources,  which  are  the  basis  of  our  national 
wealth.  More  than  ever  before  is  the  whole  world 
under  a  heavy  responsibility  to  use  its  resources 
wisely;  and  the  major  portion  of  that  burden  falls 
upon  us  who  are  the  most  richly  endowed  of  all.  .  .  . 
We  must  substitute  co-ordinated  development  by 
planning  for  opportunist  development  designed  pri- 
marily for  the  enrichment  of  the  individual." 

SUGGESTED  READINGS 

C.  E.  Van  Hise,  The  Conservation  of  Natural  Resources  in  the 
United  States. 

Gifford  Pinchot,  The  Fight  for  Conservation. 

H.  J.  Spooner,  Wealth  from  Waste. 

R.  Cronau,  Our  Wasteful  Nation. 

American  Academy  of  Political  and  Social  Sciences,  The  Con- 
servation of  Natural  Resources. 

H.  M.  Gregory,  Checking  the  Waste. 

J.  J.  Hill,  Highways  of  Progress. 

J.  H.  Patton,  The  Natural  Resources  of  the  United  States. 

O.  W.  Price,  The  Land  We  Live  In. 

C.  G.  Gilbert  and  J.  E.  Pogue,  The  Energy  Resources  of  the 
United  States. 

Theodore  Roosevelt,  The  New  Nationalism:  Chapters  on 
Natural  Resources,  Conservation. 


CHAPTER  XXIV 

THE   COMMON   GOOD 

THE  selfishness  and  shortsightedness  that  have  shown 
themselves  so  flagrantly  in  the  exploitation  of  our 
natural  resources  are  to  be  found  in  a  hundred  ways 
impeding  the  socially  efficient  conduct  of  American 
business.  Money  is  thrown  into  ventures  that  prom- 
ise quick  returns,  and  withheld  from  undertakings 
far  more  imperative  from  the  public  point  of  view. 
The  bankers,  who  lend  the  funds  for  new  enterprises, 
enlargements  of  plant,  or  production  for  future  sale, 
have  it  within  their  power  to  considerable  extent  to 
favor  or  withhold  favor  at  their  discretion.  The  peo- 
ple as  a  whole,  and  their  representatives,  have  little 
opportunity  to  decide  whether,  for  example,  agricul- 
ture or  manufacturing  or  transportation  should  be 
aided  with  credit,  whether  housing  should  be  encour- 
aged, whether  the  savings  of  the  American  people 
should  be  invested  in  this  country  or  abroad.  Yet 
these  are  matters  that  vitally  concern  the  nation  as 
a  whole. 

Take  the  matter  of  housing.  For  several  years  we 
have  been  in  dire  need  of  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
homes.  The  building  of  private  houses,  apartments, 
and  tenements  has  fallen  far  behind  the  growth  in 
population.  The  result  is  a  widespread  discomfort, 
much  serious  inconvenience,  and,  for  the  poor,  an 
overcrowding  that  is  undermining  the  health  and  the 
morals  of  a  considerable  section  of  the  population. 

271 


272  EFFICIENCY 

Yet  theatres  and  garages  have  been  going  up  in  un- 
precedented numbers;  money  has  poured  into  for- 
eign investment  in  a  great  volume,  lured  by  the  low 
exchange  rates;  all  sorts  of  socially  unnecessary 
undertakings  have  been  launched.  The  country  is 
prosperous,  but  it  apparently  can  not  get,  under  the 
present  management  of  its  savings,  the  homes  it 
imperatively  needs. 

Moreover,  in  the  conduct  of  a  given  business,  the 
criterion  of  success  has  been  the  amount  of  profits 
it  has  paid  to  its  stockholders,  rather  than  the 
service  it  has  rendered  to  the  public.  Recently  an 
advertising  circular  of  a  well-known  moving-picture 
concern  stated,  with  pride,  that  it  had  taken  in  five 
million  dollars  in  less  than  three  years  from  an  origi- 
nal investment  of  $114,000.  In  other  words,  movie 
patrons  had  been  made  to  pay  for  their  seats  enough 
more  than  the  cost  of  producing  and  showing  these 
pictures  to  pile  up  this  yield  to  the  producers.  But 
this  is  not  social  efficiency,  it  is  merely  efficiency  in 
making  money  for  a  few  people  by  charging  unneces- 
sarily high  rates  to  the  rest  of  the  people. 

So,  to  take  another  example,  has  it  been  in  life- 
insurance.  The  companies  pay  high  salaries  to  their 
officers  and  high  commissions  to  their  agents,  with 
the  result  that  fifteen  per  cent  cost  of  doing  business 
has  been  considered  reasonable.  The  United  States 
government  during  the  war  insured  four  million 
Americans  at  an  overhead  cost  of  less  than  two  per 
cent.  It  is  needless  to  multiply  instances.  Mr.  Roger 
Babson,  the  conservative  financier,  has  expressed  the 
point  of  the  matter  in  the  following  words:  "The 
dominant  thought  in  our  whole  industrial  machinery 
is  not  how  we  can  produce  the  most,  but  how  we  can 
profit  the  most." 


THE  COMMON  GOOD  273 

Individual  energy  and  initiative  in  business  must 
indeed  be  encouraged.  But  the  public  must  find  ways 
to  control  that  energy  and  initiative  in  the  interests  of 
the  common  good.  The  laissez-faire  policy  has  shown 
its  insufficiency.  It  is  not  merely  the  selfishness  of 
men  that  needs  checking,  it  is  their  honest  stupidity, 
their  shortsighted  folly.  Every  year  there  are  many 
thousands  of  business  failures  in  this  country.  These 
usually  involve  economic  waste  and  confusion,  un- 
employment, a  partial  paralysis  of  the  industrial- 
commercial  system,  as  well  as  an  incalculable  amount 
of  anxiety  and  despair.  The  great  majority  of  sui- 
cides are  due  to  business  reverses;  and  suicides  are 
increasing  in  this  country  far  faster  than  the  popula- 
tion. It  is  clear,  from  every  angle,  that  private  busi- 
ness must  be  far  more  carefully  watched  and  con- 
trolled than  heretofore. 

It  is  not  that  we  are  fundamentally  a  selfish  people. 
On  the  contrary,  no  people  are  more  generous  than 
we  in  giving  to  the  needy.  The  record  of  our  philan- 
thropies astonishes  the  world.  But  this  is  still,  for 
the  most  part,  private  altruism;  "business  is  busi- 
ness," still.  And  it  can  hardly  be  otherwise,  if  it  is 
left  free  from  legal  control.  For  the  contagion  of 
profit-making  is  inevitably  irresistible  to  most  par- 
ticipants in  the  struggle.  It  is  not  merely  for  the 
money,  it  is  for  the  pride  in  success;  and  success, 
according  to  present  standards,  means  large  profits. 
The  business  man  who  puts  the  public  service  first 
is  in  danger  of  being  elbowed  out  by  some  less  scru- 
pulous rival.  How  can  one  employer  refuse  to  use 
child-labor  when  his  rivals,  by  using  it,  are  under- 
selling him?  Or  when  the  stockholders,  whose  servant 
he  is,  are  demanding  dividends  as  large  as  those  his 
rivals  produce?  The  game  of  business  as  it  is  played 


274  EFFICIENCY 

at  present  is  a  hard  game;  and  unless  one  is  excep- 
tionally able  or  favorably  situated,  one  must  play  it 
according  to  the  accepted  rules.  If  the  results  are 
often  socially  undesirable,  the  rules  of  the  game  must 
be  altered. 

Our  fathers  were  so  afraid  of  governmental  tyranny 
that  they  wanted  the  power  of  the  State  as  slight  as 
possible.  But  the  tyranny  of  today  is  not  the  tyranny 
of  the  State,  it  is  the  tyranny  of  money-making  busi- 
ness. "Don't  deceive  yourselves  for  a  moment," 
President  Wilson  has  written,  "as  to  the  power  of 
the  great  interests  which  now  dominate  our  develop- 
ment. They  are  so  great  that  it  is  almost  an  open 
question  whether  the  government  of  the  United  States 
can  dominate  them  or  not."  In  the  pioneer  days,  all 
were  fairly  equal  in  possessions  and  opportunities; 
free  land  was  available  for  every  one ;  the  State  could 
leave  them  to  work  out  their  individual  salvation. 
Today  our  lives  have  become  endlessly  interlinked; 
and  the  men  who  hold  strategic  positions  have  enor- 
mous power  over  our  pocketbooks  and  our  lives.  The 
personal  morality  of  the  older  preaching  must  be 
supplemented  by  a  "social  gospel,"  a  doctrine  of 
common  responsibility  for  the  common  welfare. 

President  Wilson,  even  when  championing  the 
"new  freedom,"  pointed  out  that  freedom  alone  is  an 
insufficient  ideal.  "The  individual  is  caught  in  a 
great  confused  nexus  of  all  sorts  of  complicated  cir- 
cumstances ;  and  to  let  him  alone  is  to  leave  him  help- 
less as  against  the  obstacles  with  which  he  has  to 
contend ;  and  therefore,  law  in  our  day  must  come  to 
the  assistance  of  the  individual."  The  weak  must  be 
protected  against  the  strong,  the  scrupulous  against 
the  unscrupulous.  And  nothing  but  law  can  accom- 
plish this. 


THE  COMMON  GOOD  275 

For  we  must  not  expect  a  new  social-mindedness  to 
replace  the  selfishness  in  men's  hearts  through  the 
mere  preaching  of  a  gospel  of  repentance.  Exhorta- 
tion will  accomplish  little,  in  the  face  of  daily  temp- 
tation and  the  sight  of  others  "making  their  pile." 
Moreover,  it  is  not  right  to  expect  any  business  man 
to  run  the  risk  of  failure — itself  a  social  loss — 
through  trying  to  live  by  a  higher  code  than  his 
fellows  observe.  No,  the  more  socially-minded  con- 
duct of  business  will  come  only  through  the  patient 
construction  of  a  system  of  guiding  and  restrain- 
ing laws.  This  legislation  wrill  not  be  irksome  to 
the  socially-minded,  who  will  see  its  value,  but  it 
will  restrain  the  unscrupulous  and  the  greedy  from 
conduct  which  tends  to  lower  the  standard  of  practice 
all  along  the  line. 

We  must  recognize  the  fact  that  the  capital  which 
is  invested  in  business  has  come  out  of  the  pockets 
of  the  people  as  a  whole.  For  example,  the  Federal 
Trade  Commission  recently  pointed  out  the  origin 
of  the  capitalization  of  the  meat-packing  concerns. 
One  of  these  concerns  has  put  into  its  business  about 
fourteen  million  dollars  got  from  the  sale  of  stocks 
and  bonds,  and  about  a  hundred  and  forty  million 
dollars  gathered  from  the  profits  on  sales.  This  is 
the  public's  share  of  the  investment — about  ninety 
per  cent.  Add  to  this  the  fact  that  the  site-value  of 
their  plant  has  increased  enormously  owing  to  the 
growth  in  population,  and  we  must  realize  that  most 
of  this  property,  though  legally  and  legitimately 
theirs,  has  been  contributed  by  the  public,  and  must, 
therefore,  be  administered  in  the  public  interest. 

Most  business  men  themselves,  if  they  are  educated 
to  realize  the  social  harmfulness  of  certain  practices, 
will  vote  for  laws  to  prohibit  them,  although  if  there 


276  EFFICIENCY 

is  no  law  they  will  not  refrain  therefrom.  This  is 
partly  because  the  law  will  restrict  the  other  fellow 
too;  and  the  hannf illness  of  his  practices  is  more 
apparent  to  us  than  that  of  our  own.  But  it  is  also 
because  each  of  us  has  two  selves;  and  the  more 
public-minded  self,  which  votes,  is  often  willing  to 
erect  barriers  to  restrain  the  more  individualistic 
self  which  the  stress  of  business  fosters.  Such  bar- 
riers to  selfishness,  when  imposed  not  by  an  auto- 
cratic government  upon  its  subjects  but  by  free  men 
upon  themselves,  are  absolutely  necessary  steps  in 
social  progress.  By  this  blocking  of  the  pathways 
to  anti-social  activity,  many  a  man  whose  impulses 
would  have  seized  upon  opportunities  for  exploitation 
will  find  perforce  other  channels  for  his  activity  that 
will  lead  him  into  a  more  useful  and  actually  happier 
life. 

The  cry  of  "hands  off"  is  raised,  to  be  sure,  by  many 
business  men;  and  not  wholly  for  selfish  reasons. 
They  remind  us  of  our  national  ideal  of  Liberty,  and 
point  to  the  proud  record  of  our  individualistic  tra- 
dition. But  they  forget  that  the  ideal  of  Liberty 
exists  to  protect  the  weak,  and  must  not  be  used  to 
justify  the  strong  in  so  acting  as  to  impair  the  common 
good.  Liberty  means  the  right  not  to  be  exploited, 
not  the  right  to  exploit  others.  And  individualism 
must  mean  the  right  of  every  citizen  to  have  his  share 
in  determining  what  is  for  the  public  good,  not  the 
right  of  a  single  class  of  people  to  run  the  country's 
business  in  their  private  interest. 

From  another  angle,  individualism  is  seen  to  be 
always  a  half-truth ;  our  great  achievements  have  been 
accomplished  quite  as  truly  through  our  power  of 
organization  and  mutual  adjustment  as  through  our 
high  degree  of  individual  energy.  What  is  needed  now 


THE  COMMON  GOOD  277 

is  to  increase  the  span  of  organization  and  mutual 
adjustment  until  it  includes  the  whole  nation,  instead 
of  leaving  it  a  mere  organization  of  business  men  for 
purely  private  ends. 

True,  legislation  has  often  been  ill-considered  and 
blundering.  Resentment  at  the  selfishness  of  many 
of  the  trusts  has  crystallized  in  laws  which  have  some- 
times needlessly  hampered  the  organization  and  effi- 
ciency of  industry.  Loosely-devised  statutes,  con- 
strued this  way  and  that  by  different  judges,  have 
given  opportunity  for  subterfuge  and  chicane.  Never- 
theless, the  work  must  go  on.  If  laws  are  harmful, 
they  must  be  improved.  Ways  must  be  found  to  en- 
courage industrial  progress  while  restricting  unscru- 
pulous and  anti-social  practices — whatever  is  obvi- 
ously unfair  to  business  rivals,  to  employees,  or  to  the 
public.  It  is  inevitable  that  the  devising  of  the  new 
controls  over  industry  should  be  experimental  and 
sometimes  unfortunate  in  their  results.  Political 
democracy  will  require  perhaps  centuries  yet  to  grope 
its  way  toward  the  best  attainable  forms  of  public 
control.  But  the  only  way  out  is  through.  And  oppo- 
sition to  the  great  movement  only  creates  friction  and 
retards  its  achievement. 

The  principle  of  public  control  in  the  interest  of  the 
common  good  extends,  of  course,  far  beyond  the  field 
of  industry,  though  that  is  its  most  important  sphere 
of  application.  We  have  recently  seen  the  successful 
consummation  of  the  Prohibition  Movement,  which  has 
interfered  with  the  personal  habits  of  millions.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  in  the  mind  of  anyone  who  has  studied 
the  physiological  and  psychological  effects  of  alcohol 
that  our  people  are  vastly  better  off,  and  on  the  whole 
and  in  the  end  far  happier,  to  do  without  that  nar- 
cotic. This  voluntary  self-abnegation  on  the  part  of 


278  EFFICIENCY 

a  great  nation  is  almost  unexampled  in  history,  and  an 
event  of  which  we  may  well  be  proud.  There  is  no 
more  reason  to  declaim  against  the  prohibition  of 
alcohol  than  against  the  prohibition  of  the  opium  and 
cocaine  derivatives.  Any  drug  that  seriously  under- 
mines the  health  and  efficiency  of  our  people  must  be 
banished  as  rigidly  as  possible,  however  pleasant  its 
use  may  be  to  many. 

But  the  precedent  established  by  the  Eighteenth 
Amendment  has  its  dangerous  side.  The  majority — 
even  the  sweeping  majorities  needed  to  pass  an  amend- 
ment to  the  Constitution — should  beware  of  interfer- 
ing more  than  is  absolutely  necessary  with  the  per- 
sonal morals  of  individuals.  For  not  only  does  such 
interference  awaken  resentment  and  excite  against 
itself  the  passion  for  liberty,  but  there  is  also  the 
danger  of  ignoring  individual  needs,  repressing 
desirable  variations  in  conduct,  and  producing  a 
stereotyped  and  conventional  conformity  instead  of 
the  variety  of  experiments  and  variations  which  is 
the  fertile  seed-bed  of  progress.  In  general,  it  may 
be  said  that  in  the  spheres  wherein  success  and  hap- 
piness depend  largely'  upon  organization  and  mutual 
adaptation,  as  notably  in  industry,  a  great  deal  of 
restriction  upon  individual  rights  is  necessary; 
whereas  in  the  field  of  personal  habits  and  morals, 
religious  beliefs  and  worship,  artistic  activity,  and 
intellectual  research  and  discussion,  only  the  prac- 
tices universally  recognized  as  vicious,  or  shown  by 
scientific  investigation  to  be  seriously  harmful,  should 
be  forbidden. 

The  problem  of  individualism  vs.  social  control  is 
an  intricate  one,  to  which  no  glib  solution  is  possible. 
Every  case  must  be  decided  upon  its  merits.  In  some 
cases  the  joys  and  potentialities  of  unrestricted 


THE  COMMON  GOOD  279 

liberty  are  more  precious,  in  other  cases  the  public 
need  must  weigh  the  heavier  in  the  balance.  Hith- 
erto, in  America,  we  have  worshipped  individualism, 
and — according  to  the  judgment  of  nearly  all  foreign 
observers — lacked  "statemindedness,"  the  willingness 
to  subordinate  ourselves  to  the  general  welfare. 
But  the  Great  War,  with  its  conscription  of  men  and 
money,  and  its  steam-rollering  of  minority  opinions, 
revealed  a  hitherto  unrealized  willingness  to  exercise 
compulsion  in  what  the  overwhelming  majority  deems 
the  public  interest.  That  this  new  sense  of  the  moral 
and  legal  precedence  of  public  over  private  interests 
may  be  used  for  good  rather  than  unfortunate  ends 
needs  our  utmost  vigilance. 

Washington,  in  a  letter  to  the  Constitutional  Con- 
vention, pointed  out  that  "individuals  entering  into 
society  must  give  up  a  share  of  liberty  to  preserve  the 
rest."  To  learn  to  subordinate  sectional  to  national 
interests  has  taken  us  many  years;  the  lesson  was 
driven  home  by  the  crushing  defeat  of  the  Secession 
movement,  but  it  has  not  yet  been  thoroughly  learned. 
Bills  are  constantly  introduced  into  Congress  that 
favor  one  section  of  the  country  at  the  expense  of 
the  country  as  a  whole.  Projects  of  obvious  benefit 
to  the  nation  are  blocked  because  of  the  opposition  of 
certain  States  or  cities  that  fear  the  diversion  of 
their  trade  or  the  diminution  of  their  prestige.  We 
still  lack  such  a  sense  of  solidarity  as  would  ensure 
us  against  this  geographical  selfishness. 

A  century  or  so  ago  the  several  States  were  prac- 
tically self-sufficing;  comparatively  few  undertakings 
crossed  their  boundaries.  Now  State  lines  mean 
almost  nothing.  Our  railways,  telegraphs,  tele- 
phones, have  bound  us  together  in  one  industrial  and 
political  unit.  It  remains  for  us  to  work  out  a 


280  EFFICIENCY 

greater  harmony  between  State  laws.  As  it  is,  to 
quote  a  recent  writer,  "In  one  State  you  may  do  busi- 
ness for  which  in  another  State  you  would  go  to  jail ; 
in  one  you  may  be  married  and  crazy,  in  another 
single  and  sane."  This  variety  in  codes  is  of  great 
educative  value;  but  in  the  cases  mentioned,  and  in 
other  respects,  it  is  high  time  for  us  to  seek  a  greater 
national  uniformity.  The  American  of  today  seldom 
thinks  of  himself  as  first  a  citizen  of  New  York,  or 
Illinois;  he  is  first  and  foremost  a  citizen  of  the 
United  States,  and  only  secondarily  a  citizen  of  the 
particular  State  in  which  he  happens  to  reside.  It  is 
an  anomaly,  then,  that  the  disparities  in  State  laws 
should  ever  produce  such  confusion  and  injustice  as 
that  to  which  the  sentence  above  quoted  alludes. 

Geographical  sectionalism  is  probably  waning. 
But  we  must  beware  lest  a  class  or  occupational  sec- 
tionalism take  its  place.  There  are  powerful  divisive 
forces  at  work.  The  development  of  Big  Business 
has  pushed  the  employer  class  and  the  wage-earners 
farther  apart;  they  live  differently,  have  different 
interests,  read  different  newspapers,  think  differently, 
and  perhaps  in  an  increasing  degree  fail  to  under- 
stand one  another  and  to  work  together  as  comple- 
mentary elements  in  one  harmonious  industrial 
scheme. 

Thus  America,  at  first  so  homogeneous  in  her  social 
order,  now  faces  the  old-world  problem  of  class- 
stratification.  Fifth  Avenue  is  far  from  Second 
Avenue,  Beacon  Street  from  the  North  End.  If  this 
nation  ever  loses  its  unity  it  will  be  through  a  hori- 
zontal split  between  the  property-owning  classes  and 
propertyless  labor.  To  avert  such  a  calamity  must 
be  our  constant  aim  and  prayer.  We  should  remem- 
ber Koosevelt's  solemn  words :  "Other  republics  have 


THE  COMMON  GOOD  281 

failed  because  the  citizens  gradually  grew  to  consider 
the  interests  of  the  class  against  the  whole ;  for,  when 
such  was  the  case,  it  mattered  not  whether  the  poor 
plundered  the  rich  or  the  rich  exploited  the  poor;  in 
either  case  the  end  of  the  republic  was  at  hand.  We 
are  resolute  not  to  fall  into  such  a  pit.  This  great 
Republic  of  ours  shall  never  become  the  government 
of  a  plutocracy  and  it  shall  never  become  the  govern- 
ment of  a  mob." 

The  way  of  our  duty  lies  clearly  in  cultivating  the 
sense  of  common  American  ideals  as  transcending  the 
interests  of  group  or  class.  Party  loyalty  must  cease 
to  be  blind  or  selfish;  it  must  be  a  matter  of  tempo- 
rary union  to  achieve  some  definite  political  ends 
seriously  believed  to  be  for  the  general  good.  Special 
interests  must  cease  to  use  their  wealth  and  power  to 
defeat  measures  that  will  make  for  the  public  welfare. 
The  conscious  aim  of  both  parties  to  the  industrial 
struggle  must  be  to  work  out  an  industrial  system 
both  just  and  efficient.  Or — since  it  is  Utopian  to 
expect  such  a  voluntarily  maintained  wide-spread 
subordination  of  private  and  group  interests — the 
public  must  watch  its  component  groups,  and  by  a 
series  of  carefully  devised  checks  and  restraints, 
reduce  to  a  minimum  their  power  to  thwart  the 
common  good. 

Finally,  in  all  sorts  of  positive  ways,  the  people, 
through  their  legislators,  must  forward  the  general 
happiness.  We  already  provide  parks  and  play- 
grounds, hospitals  and  asylums,  public  schools  and 
universities,  libraries  and  museums,  and  many  other 
privileges,  freely  to  every  American  citizen.  All  sorts 
of  other  public  benefits  are  being  discussed — health 
and  old  age  insurance,  maternity  benefits,  public  em- 
ployment for  the  unemployed,  and  the  like.  Each  of 


282  EFFICIENCY 

these  projects  must  be  accepted  or  rejected  on  its  par- 
ticular merits.  But  we  have  definitely  abandoned  the 
conception  that  the  function  of  government  is  purely 
negative,  to  prevent  wrongdoing.  Our  government  is 
the  American  people  using  its  sovereign  power  to 
forward  in  every  possible  way  the  common  good.  The 
record  of  what  our  government  already  does  for  us 
is  an  inspiring  one ;  and  doubtless  the  future  will  see 
its  beneficent  activity  extended  in  many  directions. 
May  its  aim  ever  be,  not  sectional  advantage,  not 
class  control,  not  the  advancement  of  special  inter- 
ests, but  the  good  of  the  American  people  as  a  whole ! 

SUGGESTED  READINGS 

Webster's  Reply  to  Haynes,  Jan.  26,  1830  (Reprinted  in  Foer- 

ster  and  Pierson,  op.  cit.,  p.  17). 
John  Fiske,  American  Political  Ideas,  II. 
James  Bryce,  The  American  Commonwealth,  Book  I,  Chapters 

XXIX,  XXX. 
Theodore  Roosevelt,  The  New  Nationalism:  chapters  on  The 

Nation  and  The  States. 

J.  H.  Tufts,  Our  Democracy,  Chapters  XVIII-XXI. 
C.  R.  Henderson,  The  Social  Spirit  in  America,  Chapters  VIII, 

X. 

Ida  Tarbell,  New  Ideals  in  Business. 
Gerald  Stanley  Lee,  W e. 

E.  D.  Page,  etc.,  Morals  in  Modern  Business. 
Durant  Drake,  Problems  of  Conduct,  Chapter  XXVII. 
H.  R.  Seager,  Social  Insurance. 
J.  B.  and  J.  M.  Clark,  Control  of  the  Trusts. 
Florence  Kelley,  Some  Ethical  Gains  Through  Legislation. 

E.  A.  Ross,  Social  Control. 

J.  W.  Jenks,  Government  Action  for  Social  Welfare. 

F.  L.  Stetson,  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  Vol.  110,  p.  27. 
Arthur  Ruhl,  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  Vol.  123,  p.  686. 


PAKT  FIVE 
PATRIOTISM 


CHAPTER  XXV 

AMERICA   FIRST 

WASHINGTON,  in  his  Farewell  Address,  said  to  his 
countrymen :  "Citizens,  by  birth  or  choice,  of  a  com- 
mon country,  that  country  has  a  right  to  concentrate 
your  affections." 

The  American  of  today  yields  to  no  one  in  patriot- 
ism ;  certainly  we  make  more  noise  about  it  than  any 
other  nation !  The  fact  that  we  are  a  composite  peo- 
ple, gathered  here  from  many  lands  with  mutually 
hostile  traditions,  has  not  worked  to  make  us  less 
united,  or  less  loyal  to  this  country  of  our  birth  or 
adoption.  On  the  contrary,  there  is  actually,  beyond 
doubt,  a  greater  spiritual  homogeneity  here  than  in 
most  of  those  older  lands.  It  is  not  common  ancestry 
that  makes  national  unity,  it  is  common  ideals,  and 
common  hopes.  The  Great  War  showed  that  men 
of  all  racial  stocks  were  equally  eager  to  give  their 
money,  their  labor,  and  their  lives  to  the  national 
service.  There  are  varying  degrees  of  sympathy  for, 
or  hostility  toward,  the  several  nations  of  the  old 
world ;  but  for  us  all  it  is  "America  first." 

There  is,  indeed,  in  some  quarters,  a  distrust  of 
this  patriotic  sentiment.  Here  and  there  a  band  of 
"internationalists"  disavow  it.  A  small  group  of 
pacifists,  among  them  men  of  the  highest  motives,  and 
a  few  leaders  of  distinction,  speak  of  the  nationalistic 
emotion  as  a  primitive  and  dangerous  passion,  to  be 
superseded  by  the  boundaryless  brotherhood  of  man. 

285 


286  PATEIOTISM 

And  we  must  all  recognize  the  force  of  their  argu- 
ments. Patriotism  often  functions  as  a  collective 
selfishness,  more  disastrous  by  far  than  individual 
selfishness.  It  easily  degenerates  into  chauvinism, 
or,  as  we  call  it,  jingoism,  inspiring  men  with  the  lust 
of  conquest,  provoking  jealousy  and  hatred  of  other 
nations,  impeding  the  unification  of  mankind.  If  it 
were  not  for  patriotism,  it  would  be  impossible  to 
get  the  peoples  to  go  to  war  with  one  another.  And 
when  we  see  the  suffering  and  the  ruin  that  war  has 
brought  to  man,  we  may  well  ask  if  the  value  of 
patriotism  can  counterbalance  this  harm. 

Even  when  patriotism  is  not  truculent  it  is — 
speaking  in  nationalistic  terms — self-centered.  It 
tends  to  ignore  the  achievements,  to  dislike  the  man- 
ners and  morals  of  other  peoples.  It  thinks  of  them 
as  "foreigners,"  that  is,  as  being  essentially  different 
from  us,  and  prefers  to  believe  that  everything  we  do 
is  better  than  what  they  do,  that  every  opinion  we 
hold  is  truer  than  theirs.  Thus  it  tends  to  be  pro- 
vincial, to  erect  barriers  that  impede  the  free  ex- 
change of  ideas  and  ideals,  and  to  deprive  each  nation, 
to  some  extent,  of  what  the  other  nations  could  con- 
tribute to  its  development. 

When  patriotism  goes  even  farther  in  this  direction 
and  becomes  "spread-eagleism,"  it  is  insufferable. 
The  boastful  American,  bragging  endlessly  of  his 
country's  prosperity  and  power,  curling  his  lips 
patronizingly  at  the  lower  buildings  or  slower  trains 
or  less  comfortable  hotels  of  some  foreign  land,  and 
making  it  plain  that  he  will  be  thankful  to  get  back 
to  "God's  own  country,"  brings  us  into  serious  dis- 
repute. As  a  matter  of  fact,  while  our  civilization  is 
in  some  respects  superior  to  that  of  most  other  coun- 
tries, it  is  in  other  respects  inferior;  we  have  much 


AMERICA  FIRST  287 

to  learn  as  well  as  much  to  teach.  And  the  compla- 
cent self-satisfaction  of  the  unmannerly  tourist  is 
one  of  the  developments  of  our  national  life  of  which 
we  have  least  reason  to  be  proud. 

Even  worse  is  the  bigotry  that,  parading  under  the 
cloak  of  patriotism,  seeks  to  stamp  out  all  criticism 
of  our  contemporary  institutions  or  of  the  policies  of 
the  party  in  power,  on  the  ground  that  such  criticism 
is  "unpatriotic."  During  a  time  of  war  this  intoler- 
ance of  minority  opinions  is  less  inexcusable;  the 
successful  prosecution  of  the  war  may  require  a  tem- 
porary willingness  to  submerge  differences  and  unite 
on  the  policy  that  approves  itself  to  the  majority. 
But  even  then,  the  suppression  of  criticism  is  highly 
dangerous.  Administrations  commit  serious  blunders 
for  the  lack  of  the  light  that  such  criticism  might 
have  shed.  And  since  even  a  democracy  may  be  led 
into  an  unrighteous  or  inexpedient  war,  the  right  to 
discuss  the  whole  matter  with  perfect  freedom  is  of 
the  utmost  importance.  It  takes  courage  to  maintain 
unpopular  opinions,  it  takes  individuality  to  think 
up  new  ideas;  such  courage  and  individuality  are 
among  our  best  assets,  and  should  be  encouraged 
rather  than  repressed.  We  are  far  too  apt  to  swing 
with  the  tide,  to  be  carried  off  our  feet  by  a  wave  of 
popular  feeling,  or  to  stick  in  the  rut  of  unthinking 
habit.  Men  who  differ  from  the  majority  by  no  means 
always  do  so  from  selfish  or  traitorous  motives;  on 
the  contrary,  they  may  be  actuated  by  ideals  far 
higher  than  those  of  their  persecutors. 

Mr.  Gilbert  Chesterton  recently  wrote,  "I  have 
passed  the  great  part  of  my  life  in  criticizing  and 
condemning  the  existing  rulers  and  institutions  of 
my  country :  I  think  it  is  infinitely  the  most  patriotic 
thing  that  a  man  can  do."  The  real  anti-patriots 


288  PATKIOTISM 

are  not  the  critics  and  would-be  reformers  of  our 
institutions,  not  those  who  hold  unpopular  views 
or  oppose  contemporary  policies,  but  rather  the  ill- 
mannered  and  truculent,  who  give  us  a  bad  name 
among  neighboring  peoples  or  inflame  our  feelings 
against  them ;  the  advocates  of  "national  expansion," 
who  would  have  us  trample  on  the  rights  of  other 
nations  to  increase  our  own  power  and  prosperity; 
the  idle  and  frivolous,  who  fail  to  contribute  their 
share  to  the  nation's  work ;  the  profiteers,  who  think 
in  terms  of  their  own  pocket-books  instead  of  in  terms 
of  public  service;  the  groups  that  put  sectional  or 
class  interests  above  the  national  interest  and  think 
in  terms  of  group-loyalty  rather  than  in  terms  of  the 
common  good. 

Professor  J.  M.  Mecklin,  in  a  recent  volume,  points 
out  that  the  American  "is  patriotic.  But  the  state 
that  elicits  his  patriotism  is  a  hazy  idealistic  entity 
that  bears  about  the  same  relation  to  actual  politics 
that  the  ethics  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  does  to 
the  'rules  of  the  game'  in  business.  These  shadowy 
ideals  find  expression  at  Fourth  of  July  celebrations, 
or  are  evoked  by  the  name  of  Lincoln  or  the  sight 
of  the  flag.  Seldom  do  they  provide  moral  dynamic 
in  dealing  with  the  problems  of  the  immediate  poli- 
tical situation." 

There  is  no  doubt  that  as  a  people  we  are  lacking, 
as  Mr.  Wells  and  many  other  observers  have  pointed 
out,  in  "state-mindedness."  The  complacency  with 
which  we  have  allowed  politics  to  become  the  happy 
hunting-ground  of  self-seeking  politicians,  or  with 
which  we  have  allowed  our  precious  natural  resources 
to  be  recklessly  wasted,  are  examples  of  this  ineffec- 
tiveness of  our  patriotic  emotions.  Our  patriotism 
has  been  too  largely  oratorical,  a  pride  in  what  our 


AMERICA  FIRST  289 

fathers  did,  rather  than  a  concrete  impulse  to  make 
sacrifices  ourselves  for  our  country.  Our  young  men 
are,  indeed,  ready  to  die  for  their  country,  ready  to 
serve  her  unselfishly  in  time  of  war.  But  in  the  ordin- 
ary times  of  peace  there  seems  to  be  too  often  a  hiatus 
between  their  sentiment  of  patriotism  and  the  duties 
and  sacrifices  to  which  it  should  lead  them. 

The  fact  is,  that  patriotism,  like  religion  and  love 
and  every  other  great  passion,  is  capable  of  great 
good  and  of  greaj/harm.  Edith  Cavell,  as  she  went  to 
her  death,  uttered  four  words  which  many  people 
have  declared  the  greatest  saying  of  the  war — 
"Patriotism  is  not  enough."  The  critics  of  patriotism 
are  right,  with  reference  to  the  wrong  kind  of  patriot- 
ism, the  kind  that  is  nothing  but  a  larger  egotism,  a 
bias  of  the  emotions  and  the  judgment,  an  intolerant 
bigotry,  a  latent  hostility  to  other  peoples,  or  a  ruth- 
lessness  in  attaining  national  ends.  But  on  the  other 
hand,  at  its  best  it  is  one  of  the  noblest  sentiments, 
and  far  too  valuable  a  motive  force  to  be  allowed  to 
wane. 

Just  in  itself,  as  a  joy  and  addition  to  life,  it  is 
worth  much  to  us.  Edward  Everett  Hale's  familiar 
story,  "The  Man  Without  a  Country,"  drives  home 
this  truth.  We  have  many  beautiful  mountains  and 
seas,  rivers,  lakes,  cities,  and  park-like  countrysides; 
we  may  well  be  passionately  attached  to  the  land  and 
sing  with  genuine  emotion  "I  love  thy  rocks  and  rills, 
thy  woods  and  templed  hills."  We  have  splendid 
public  buildings,  noble  works  of  art  and  literature. 
We  have  a  roll-call  of  heroes  of  which  we  may  be 
deeply  proud.  We  have  traditions  of  high  idealism 
which  should  be  a  stimulus  to  the  apathetic  and  a 
rebuke  to  the  selfish.  To  glory  in  all  this  is  our  right 
and  our  high  privilege. 


290  PATEIOTISM 

What  a  pity  then,  that  we  Americans  should  often 
seem  to  glory  above  all  else  in  our  prosperity  and 
wealth,  our  mere  size  and  power!  It  is  not  particu- 
larly to  our  credit  that  our  ancestors  found  an  empty 
and  unexploited  continent  awaiting  them,  or  that  this 
abundance  of  free  land  and  rich  natural  resources 
has  made  us  richer  than  the  older,  crowded  nations. 
Nor  is  it  particularly  to  our  merit  that  we  have  been 
able  to  keep  relatively  free  from  wars,  with  the  oceans 
protecting  us  on  either  side.  The  question  is  rather, 
What  have  we  done  with  this  lavish  wealth,  this  un- 
exampled opportunity?  Are  we  building  therewith  a 
beautiful,  brotherly,  happy  civilization?  We  have 
much  of  which  to  be  ashamed.  Pride  is  legitimate, 
and  desirable ;  but  it  should  be  discriminating,  evoked 
by  what  is  really  deserving  of  pride,  and  coupled 
with  a  genuine  humility  as  we  consider  our  faults 
and  face  the  unformed  future. 

Above  all,  we  must  make  our  patriotism  "not  the 
will  to  power  but  the  will  to  serve."  We  should  be 
proud  to  be  honorable,  generous,  and  conciliatory. 
We  should  desire  for  our  country  not  its  enrichment 
or  power  at  the  expense  of  other  peoples,  but  such 
achievements  as  will  redound  to  our  common  advan- 
tage. Our  rivalry  should  be  a  rivalry  in  service.  In 
the  words  of  Mr.  Stuart  Sherman,  "the  new  type  of 
patriot  no  longer  cries  'My  country  against  the 
world !'  but  'My  country  for  the  world !'  " 

Eoosevelt  did  much  to  awaken  this  higher  form  of 
patriotism.  "So  far,"  he  once  wrote,  "from  patriot- 
ism being  inconsistent  with  a  proper  regard  for  the 
rights  of  other  nations,  I  hold  that  the  true  patriot, 
who  is  as  jealous  of  the  national  honor  as  a  gentleman 
of  his  own  honor,  will  be  careful  to  see  that  the  nation 
neither  inflicts  nor  suffers  wrong,  just  as  a  gentleman 


AMERICA  FIRST  291 

scorns  equally  to  wrong  others  or  to  suffer  others 
to  wrong  him."  And  again,  "True  patriotism  carries 
with  it  not  hostility  to  other  nations,  but  a  quickened 
sense  of  responsible  good-will  towards  other  nations." 

Admiral  Decatur  is  reported  to  have  said,  in  words 
that  have  become  famous,  "Our  country!  In  her 
intercourse  with  foreign  nations  may  she  be  always 
in  the  right ;  but  our  country,  right  or  wrong!"  In  a 
very  real  sense  we  can  all  say  Amen !  to  these  words. 
Whatever  wrongs  our  country  may  commit,  she  is  still 
our  country,  and  we  shall  love  and  serve  her  with  un- 
diminished  ardor.  But  if  these  words  mean  that  we 
should  back  an  iniquitous  policy,  if  our  officials 
should  be  led  into  it,  or  even  if  a  temporary  popular 
majority  should  approve  it,  they  are  sinister  words, 
deserving  the  sternest  rebuke.  Precisely  the  most 
patriotic  service,  on  such  an  occasion,  would  consist 
in  opposing  to  the  last  ditch  the  act  that  in  our  opinion 
would  stain  the  national  honor.  Our  country,  right 
or  wrong,  yes ;  but  if  our  country  seems  to  you  or  to 
me  to  be,  in  any  instance,  in  the  wrong,  it  is  our 
sacred  duty  not  to  connive  at  her  wrongdoing,  but 
to  use  whatever  infinitesimal  influence  we  may  have 
in  the  effort  to  turn  her  back  to  the  right,  that  her 
record  may  be  untarnished  and  her  name  held  in  high 
honor  among  nations. 

It  is  an  old  fallacy  that  a  nation's  honor  requires 
it  to  be  touchy  and  quick  to  resentment,  that  the  way 
for  it  to  be  great  is  through  making  itself  feared.  It 
should  be  the  pride  of  America  that  in  spite  of  her 
great  strength  she  is  not  feared  but  loved.  It  should 
be  our  boast  that  in  our  dealings  with  other  countries 
we  are  always  generous,  always  considerate  of  their 
interests  as  well  as  of  our  own ;  that  we  practice  no 
secret  intrigues,  seek  to  get  the  advantage  of  no  one, 


292  PATRIOTISM 

but  do  unto  other  nations  as  we  would  have  them  do 
unto  us.  If  this  reputation  were  everywhere  to  be 
ours,  how  proud  we  should  be  to  be  Americans! 

On  the  whole,  as  compared  with  the  world's  long 
history  of  international  intrigue  and  chicane,  our 
record  is  excellent.  Secretary  Hay  stated  our  policy 
as  follows:  "The  principles  which  have  guided  us 
have  been  of  limpid  simplicity  .  .  .  We  have  set  no 
traps ;  we  have  wasted  no  time  in  evading  the  imagin- 
ary traps  of  others  .  .  .  There  might  be  worse  repu- 
tations for  a  country  to  acquire  than  that  of  always 
speaking  the  truth,  and  always  expecting  it  from 
others.  In  bargaining  we  have  tried  not  to  get  the 
worst  of  the  deal,  always  remembering  however,  that 
the  best  bargains  are  those  that  satisfy  both  sides 
.  .  .  Let  us  hope  we  may  never  be  big  enough  to  out- 
grow our  conscience." 

This  statement,  by  one  of  our  greatest  Secretaries 
of  State,  of  his  working  ideal,  carries  out  the  admoni- 
tion of  Washington :  "Our  politics  must  have  for  its 
basis  the  purest  principles  of  private  morality;  and 
the  same  virtues  which  commend  the  good  man  to  the 
esteem  of  his  fellows  must  commend  our  republic  to 
the  esteem  of  the  world."  President  Wilson  voiced 
this  same  ideal  in  an  address  to  Congress,  when  he 
said,  "We  are  at  the  beginning  of  an  age  in  which 
it  will  be  insisted  that  the  same  standards  of  conduct 
and  responsibility  for  wrong  done  shall  be  observed 
among  nations  and  their  governments  that  are  ob- 
served among  individual  citizens  of  civilized  states." 

Magnanimity  and  absence  of  rancor,  courtesy 
toward  our  neighbors,  a  readiness  to  listen  to  what 
other  peoples  have  to  say,  and  a  serious  effort  to 
understand  them  and  adjust  our  needs  to  theirs,  have 
distinguished  the  greatest  Americans,  and  made 


AMERICA  FIRST  293 

them  not  only  national  heroes  but  men  whom  all  the 
world  delights  to  honor.  But  the  path  is  not  easy 
to  tread;  and  we  must  be  constantly  on  our  guard 
lest  we  lapse  from  this  high  ideal.  It  is  easy  to  see 
the  motes  in  our  neighbors'  eyes;  their  traditions 
and  problems  are  not  ours,  and  we  can  readily  per- 
suade ourselves  that  we  should  have  been  juster, 
more  disinterested,  more  generous,  in  such  and  such 
a  case,  than  they.  It  would  better  behoove  us  to  listen 
with  open  minds  to  the  criticisms  of  our  own  conduct 
on  the  part  of  these  others.  For  abstract  ideals  easily 
go  by  the  board  in  the  face  of  concrete  exigencies; 
and  to  see  ourselves  as  others  see  us  is  a  salutary 
discipline. 

In  a  word,  it  is  not  more  patriotism  quantitatively 
that  we  need,  but  a  higher  quality  of  patriotism ;  not 
the  sort  of  patriotism  that  has  a  chip  on  its  shoulder, 
but  the  sort  that  seeks  to  make  our  nation  first  in 
justice,  honor,  and  international  service.  And  even 
more  imperatively,  the  sort  of  patriotism  that  will 
make  us  conscious  of  our  national  solidarity,  and  glad 
to  sacrifice  our  personal  interests  to  the  greatest  wel- 
fare of  our  people  as  a  whole.  "America  first"  should 
mean  precisely  that; — the  welfare  of  our  country  be- 
fore our  personal  advantage.  In  the  words  of  Mr. 
Elihu  Koot,  "True  love  of  country  means  a  little 
different  feeling  toward  every  American  because  he 
is  an  American.  It  means  a  desire  that  every  Ameri- 
can shall  be  prosperous;  it  means  kindly  considera- 
tion for  his  opinions,  for  his  views,  for  his  interests, 
for  his  prejudices,  and  charity  for  his  follies  and  his 
errors." 

This  sort  of  patriotism  will  not  develop  unaided, 
from  Fourth  of  July  celebrations  and  salutations  of 
the  flag.  It  must  be  carefully  fostered,  by  systematic 


294  PATRIOTISM 

and  skillful  training.  It  requires  the  vigilance  of 
every  high-minded  citizen  to  keep  it  from  lapsing  into 
its  more  primitive  forms.  But  if  it  can  be  developed 
in  masses  of  our  countrymen  into  the  noble  passion 
that  it  has  been  in  our  greatest  leaders,  it  will  be  a 
dynamic  of  incalculable  power  and  beneficence. 

"Out  of  a  land  of  comfort  and  of  ease, 

Holding  for  conscience'  sake  the  world  well  lost, 
Our  dauntless  fathers  dared  the  winter  seas, 

The  savage  arrow,  and  the  hungry  frost, 
Knowing  the  danger,  counting  well  the  cost. 

The  legend  of  their  courage  we  recall — 
We  thrill  with  pride  to  know  that  in  our  veins 

The  glow  of  that  heroic  blood  remains. 
We  thrill — and  that  is  all. 

"We  pile  our  heroes'  cairns,  each  year  a  stone; 

It  is  our  joy  the  starry  flag  to  wave 
For  those  who  died  for  freedom  of  our  own 

And  those  who  died  for  freedom  of  the  slave. 
Laying  our  laurel  on  each  patriot's  grave, 

Proudly  we  tell  of  liberty's  great  price 
And  echo  with  a  glibness  undismayed 

Words  bled  from  the  deep  hearts  of  those  who  paid. 
Shall  not  their  blood  suffice? 

"We  who  have  grown  so  perfect  in  the  word, 
Where  is  the  holy  lightning  of  the  deed? 

We  of  the  facile  heart  so  quickly  stirred 

And  soothed  with  dreams  ere  it  has  time  to  bleed, 

Vainly  we  call  ourselves  the  Pilgrim  seed — 
Where  is  the  Pilgrim  soul  that  braved  the  sea 

For  a  pure  conscience?    God  awake  the  men 
Of  power  to  make  America  again 

A  country  of  the  free!" 

SUGGESTED   READINGS 

I/incoln's  Gettysburg  Address. 

J.  M.  Gathany,  ed.,  American  Patriotism  in  Prose  and  Verse. 

G.  K.  Chesterton,  Patriotism,  in  The  Defendant. 

George  Santayana,  Reason  in  Society,  Chap.  VII. 

R.  B.  Perry,  The  Free  Man  and  the  Soldier,  Chap.  HI. 


AMERICA  FIRST  295 

Bertrand  Russell,  Political  Ideals,  Chap.  V. 
Rabindranath  Tagore,  Nationalism. 
Gifford  Pinchot,  The  Fight  for  Conservation,  XII. 
L.  A.  Mead,  Patriotism  and  the  New  Internationalism. 
I.  W.  Howerth,  in  Educational  Review,  vol.  44,  p.  13.     (Re- 
printed in  Fulton,  op.  cit.,  p.  210). 
Arthur  Bullard,  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  119,  p.  491. 
F.  M.  Stawell,  in  International  Journal  of  Ethics,  vol.  25,  p.  292. 
Alfred  Jordan,  in  International  Journal  of  Ethics,  vol.  15,  p.  1. 


CHAPTER  XXVI 

PEACEABLENESS 

A  PATRIOTIC  people  need  not  be  militant ;  and  in  spite 
of  the  half  dozen  wars  that  we  have  waged  during  the 
brief  span  of  our  national  life,  we  are  a  peace-loving 
folk.  We  have  tried  to  observe  Washington's  injunc- 
tion to  "observe  good  faith  and  justice  toward  all  na- 
tions," and  to  live  in  relations  of  mutual  esteem  and 
good  will  with  the  rest  of  the  world. 

We  cannot  control  the  spirit  of  other  nations.  But 
to  no  small  extent,  their  attitude  toward  us  will  be 
determined  by  our  attitude  toward  them.  Emerson 
thus  expressed  the  fearlessness  with  which  a  peace- 
loving  people  faces  the  future :  "Whenever  we  see  the 
doctrine  of  peace  embraced  by  a  nation,  we  may  be 
assured  that  it  will  not  be  one  that  invites  injury; 
but  one,  on  the  contrary,  which  has  a  friend  in  the 
bottom  of  the  heart  of  every  man,  even  of  the  violent 
and  the  base ;  one  against  which  no  weapon  can  pros- 
per; one  which  is  looked  upon  as  the  asylum  of  the 
human  race  and  has  the  tears  and  the  blessings  of 
mankind." 

Our  hatred  of  war  results  from  no  lack  of  daring  or 
ambition.  On  the  contrary,  our  people  have  sprung 
from  the  more  adventurous  and  hardy  of  the  Old 
World,  who  had  the  courage  and  persistence  to  cross 
the  ocean  and  make  a  new  life  for  themselves  in  a  far- 
away land.  When  we  have  had  to  face  war  we  have 
fought  as  fiercely  and  as  fearlessly  as  any.  But  our 

296 


PEACEABLENESS  297 

composite  origin,  our  distance  from  the  ancient  feuds 
of  Europe,  and  the  relative  security  afforded  by  our 
isolation,  have  given  us  a  calmer  outlook  and  enabled 
us  to  see  war  for  the  horror  that  it  is.  It  was  our 
General  Sherman  whose  dictum  "War  is  hell"  has 
berome  so  famous.  And  the  boys  who  made  such  a 
gallant  record  for  America  on  the  fields  of  France 
have  for  the  most  part  come  home  resolved  that  if  they 
can  help  it,  no  such  horror  shall  recur. 

But  the  American  spirit  is  not  that  of  non-resis- 
tance to  evil.  We  were  very  reluctant,  as  a  people,  to 
enter  the  Great  War;  but  the  day  came  when  it 
seemed  a  worse  evil  to  stay  out  than  to  go  in.  There 
are  wrongs  so  intolerable  that  even  the  horrors  of  war 
are  to  be  preferred.  And  we  must  face  the  fact  that 
such  a  situation  may,  possibly,  arise  again.  If  an 
aggressive  military  imperialism  again  seeks  to  enslave 
a  weaker  country,  to  seize  its  territory,  crush  its  peo- 
ples' spirit,  and  plunder  its  resources  for  its  own  ag- 
grandizement, and  if  no  other  way  than  war  seems 
open  to  prevent  that  black  and  cruel  tyranny,  then 
war  there  must  be  again.  Better  that  millions  should 
die  on  the  field,  better  that  civilization  should  perish, 
if  need  be,  than  that  such  injustice  should  be  done. 
So  speaks  the  traditional  American  spirit. 

America's  passion  for  justice  has  been  voiced  by 
no  one  more  eloquently  than  by  Koosevelt.  "Peace 
is  not  the  end,"  he  declared,  "Righteousness  is  the  end 
...  It  is  a  wicked  thing  to  be  neutral  between  right 
and  wrong."  "The  chief  trouble  comes  from  the  en- 
tire inability  of  these  worthy  people  to  understand 
that  they  are  demanding  things  that  are  mutually  in- 
compatible when  they  demand  peace  at  any  price  and 
also  justice  and  righteousness."  "The  golden  hopes 
of  mankind  can  be  realized  only  by  men  who  have  iron 


298  PATKIOTISM 

in  their  blood;  by  men  who  scorn  to  do  wrong  and 
equally  scorn  to  submit  to  wrong;  by  men  of  gentle 
souls  whose  hearts  are  harder  than  steel  in  their 
readiness  to  war  against  brutality  and  evil."  "The 
only  peace  of  permanent  value  is  the  peace  of  right- 
eousness." 

The  trouble  with  the  peace-at-any-price  attitude  is, 
that  if  there  is  any  people  bent  on  ruthless  aggression, 
it  plays  into  their  hands.  This  was  what  Roosevelt 
saw  so  clearly.  "The  existence  of  soft  timidity  in  one 
nation  puts  a  premium  upon  brutality  in  another." 
"The  ultra-pacifists  have  exerted  practically  no  in- 
fluence in  restraining  wrong,  although  they  have 
sometimes  had  a  real  and  lamentable  influence  in 
crippling  the  forces  of  right  and  preventing  them 
from  dealing  with  wrong." 

It  is  unhappily  true  that  the  highest  ends  can 
sometimes  be  attained  only  by  the  most  tragic  means. 
Many  of  the  goods  that  we  value  most  have  been  won 
only  through  the  willingness  of  our  fathers  to  fight 
for  them.  In  the  words  of  another  American  of  inci- 
sive thought  and  speech,  Professor  A.  O.  Lovejoy  of 
Johns  Hopkins,  "That  youths  should  be  sent  out 
armed  to  kill  or  maim  other  youths  is  an  unspeakably 
abominable  thing ;  but  it  is  yet  more  abominable  that 
through  horror  at  this  evil,  the  lovers  of  peace  should 
become  the  silent  partners  of  those  that  make  and 
would  perpetuate  war,  and  that  our  youth  should  be 
bred  to  sit  by  with  folded  hands  while  others  are 
made  the  victims  of  lawless  violence." 

Our  participation  in  the  Great  War  was  directed 
by  such  motives.  The  question  before  us  was,  should 
we  allow  these  unoffending  peoples  to  be  enslaved  and 
dominated,  against  their  passionate  protest,  by  an 
ambitious  and  ruthless  nation?  Their  youths  were 


PEACEABLENESS  299 

dying  by  the  million  to  preserve  their  liberties ;  could 
we  sit  by  and  see  their  sacrifice  vain?  President  Wil- 
son voiced  the  mind  of  our  people  in  his  reply  to  the 
Pope,  August  29,  1917 :  "The  object  of  this  war  is  to 
deliver  the  free  peoples  of  the  world  from  the  menace 
and  the  actual  power  of  a  vast  military  establishment 
controlled  by  an  irresponsible  government,  which, 
having  secretly  planned  to  dominate  the  world,  pro- 
ceeded to  carry  the  plan  out  without  regard  either  to 
the  sacred  obligations  of  treaty  or  the  long  established 
practices  and  long  cherished  principles  of  interna- 
tional action  and  honor ;  which  chose  its  own  time  for 
the  war;  delivered  its  blow  fiercely  and  suddenly; 
stopped  at  no  barrier,  either  of  law  or  of  mercy,  swept 
a  whole  continent  within  the  tide  of  blood — not  the 
blood  of  soldiers  only,  but  the  blood  of  innocent  wo- 
men and  children  also,  and  of  the  helpless  poor — and 
now  stands  balked  but  not  defeated,  the  enemy  of 
four-fifths  of  the  world." 

President  Wilson  delayed  long  our  entrance  into 
the  war.  "Never  shall  I  forget,"  he  wrote,  "that  the 
sword  is  not  to  be  drawn  until  the  last  moment,  to 
defend  public  liberties,  and  that  it  is  to  be  returned 
to  the  scabbard  at  the  first  moment  when  those  liber- 
ties are  safe."  "The  choice  we  make  for  ourselves 
must  be  made  with  a  moderation  of  counsel  and  a 
temperateness  of  judgment  befitting  our  character 
and  our  motives  as  a  nation.  We  must  put  excited 
feeling  away.  Our  motive  will  not  be  revenge,  or  the 
victorious  assertion  of  the  physical  might  of  the  na- 
tion, but  only  the  vindication  of  right,  of  human  right 
.  .  .  we  have  no  selfish  ends  to  serve.  We  desire  no 
conquest,  no  dominion.  We  seek  no  indemnities  for 
ourselves,  no  material  compensation  for  the  sacrifices 
we  shall  freely  make.  We  are  but  one  of  the  cham- 


300  PATRIOTISM 

pions  of  the  rights  of  mankind;  we  shall  be  satisfied 
when  those  rights  have  been  made  as  secure  as  faith 
and  the  freedom  of  nations  can  make  them  .  .  .  The 
day  has  come  when  America  is  privileged  to  spend  her 
blood  and  her  might  for  the  principles  that  gave  her 
birth  and  happiness  and  the  peace  which  she  has  treas- 
ured. God  helping  her,  she  can  do  no  other." 

Four  years  earlier,  when  a  clamor  rose  among  the 
hot-tempered  for  intervention  in  Mexico,  Mr.  Wilson 
had  shown  the  same  spirit  of  generosity  and  modera- 
tion. "Impatience  on  our  part  would  be  childish,  and 
would  be  fraught  with  every  risk  of  wrong  and  folly 
.  .  .  We  can  afford  to  exercise  the  self-restraint  of 
a  really  great  nation  which  realizes  its  own  strength 
and  scorns  to  misuse  it." 

This  declaration  of  national  policy  should  be  put 
side  by  side  with  Washington's  "I  have  always 
thought  that  no  nation  should  meddle  with  the  inter- 
national affairs  of  another  nation."  And  with  Presi- 
dent Harrison's  "In  no  case  do  we  desire  territorial 
possessions  which  do  not  directly  form  one  body  with 
our  national  domain ;  and  we  nowhere  desire  a  domain 
acquired  by  criminal  aggression." 

These  sentiments  have  been  repeated  over  and  over 
again  by  our  statesmen,  and  express  the  true  spirit  of 
Americanism.  But  it  is  wise  to  repeat  them  often, 
since  there  are  not  wanting  jingoes  in  our  midst,  and 
those  who  would  gladly  find  profit  or  prestige  in  an- 
other people's  humiliation.  Certain  newspaper  own- 
ers have  been  persistently  trying  to  inflame  our  fears 
and  our  resentment  toward  other  nations.  And  not  a 
few  citizens  of  the  nations  to  the  south  of  us  suspect 
us  of  imperialistic  designs.  Our  interventions  in 
Haiti,  Santo  Domingo,  and  Nicaragua,  our  acquisition 
of  Porto  Rico  and  the  Canal  Zone,  may  easily  seem  to 


PEACEAELENESS  301 

be  the  first  steps  in  an  attempt  to  extend  our  sway 
over  the  relatively  feeble  nations  below  our  borders. 
And  we  must  confess  that  our  diplomacy  has  not  al- 
ways been  such  as  to  remove  these  fears.  A  South 
American  of  eminence  is  reported  to  have  said  re- 
cently, "To  live  on  the  shady  side  of  the  big  stick  is 
not  pleasant." 

It  is  unfortunate  that  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  intend- 
ed for  the  protection  of  our  weaker  neighbors,  should 
have  come  to  be  construed  in  some  quarters  as  an 
attempt  to  dominate  them.  President  Monroe's 
words  were  "The  American  continents,  by  the  free 
and  independent  condition  which  they  have  assumed 
and  maintained,  are  henceforth  not  to  be  considered 
as  subjects  for  future  colonization  by  any  European 
powers."  They  were  intended  as  a  warning  to  the 
world  that  we  should  not  allow  any  further  perman- 
ent occupation  of  territory  or  acquisition  of  political 
control  in  the  American  hemisphere  by  a  non-Ameri- 
can power. 

Now  that  some  of  the  South  American  peoples  have 
become  stable  in  their  government,  and  powerful  na- 
tions, it  would  be  courteous  to  cease  talking  of  our- 
selves as  the  guardian  of  their  liberties,  and  to  con- 
sider the  Monroe  doctrine  as  upheld  by  the  united 
will  and  might  of  the  peoples  of  North  and  South 
America.  In  Mr.  Wilson's  address  to  the  Pan-Ameri- 
can Conference,  he  declared  that  there  is  in  it  "no 
claim  of  guardianship  or  thought  of  wards,  but  in- 
stead, a  full  and  honorable  association  as  of  partners 
between  ourselves  and  our  neighbors,  in  the  interest 
of  all  America  north  and  south  .  .  .  All  the  govern- 
ments of  America  stand,  as  far  as  we  are  concerned, 
upon  a  feeling  of  genuine  equality  and  unquestioned 
independence." 


302  PATKIOTISM 

The  Monroe  doctrine  is,  after  all,  nothing  but  a 
special  application  of  the  principle  of  the  self-deter- 
mination of  nations,  for  the  sake  of  which  we  fought 
in  the  Great  War.  Indeed,  Mr.  Wilson  has  proposed 
"that  the  nations  should  with  one  accord  adopt  the 
doctrine  of  President  Monroe  as  the  doctrine  of  the 
world;  that  no  nation  should  seek  to  extend  its  policy 
over  any  other  nation  or  people,  but  that  every  people 
should  be  left  free  to  determine  its  own  policy,  its 
own  way  of  development,  unhindered,  unthreatened, 
unafraid,  the  little  along  with  the  great  and  power- 
ful." 

Nothing  is  of  more  vital  moment  than  that  we 
should  convince  the  world  of  our  pacific  intentions, 
our  absolute  determination  to  infringe  on  the  rights 
and  liberties  of  no  other  people,  together  with  an 
equal  determination  to  stand  with  the  other  moral 
forces  in  the  world  in  opposing  such  aggression  on  the 
part  of  any  other  nation.  While  maintaining  a  reas- 
onable preparedness  for  possible  emergencies,  we 
must  avoid  belying  our  pacific  declarations  by  seek- 
ing to  outbuild  the  navies  of  other  nations  or  by 
maintaining  a  large  standing  army.  As  we  are  the 
strongest  and  securest  among  the  nations,  it  is  our 
plain  duty  to  lead  the  way  toward  disarmament. 
Happily  we  are  so  situated  that  we  can  avoid  the  crea- 
tion of  a  great  military  establishment — which,  as 
Washington  warned  his  countrymen,  is  always  "in- 
auspicious to  liberty,  and  particularly  hostile  to  re- 
publican liberty." 

The  common  sense  of  the  American  people  refuses 
to  believe  that  the  war  of  man  against  man  is  a  neces- 
sary evil,  ineradicable  from  human  life.  We  confi- 
dently look  forward  to  the  time  of  man's  coming  of 
age,  when  he  shall  lay  aside  his  foolish  pa-ssions,  his 


PEACEABLENESS  303 

insensate  will  to  destroy,  and  learn  to  put  all  his 
energy  and  his  devotion  into  the  great  common  war 
against  nature.  That  this  time  may  come  quickly,  we 
must  keep  before  our  people  the  remembrance  of  the 
horror  and  the  wickedness  of  war — not  to  belittle  the 
heroism  of  our  forefathers,  or  of  the  youth  of  today, 
but  to  remind  ourselves  that  such  terrible  sacrifices 
must  not  again  be  necessary,  that  a  better  way  must 
be  found  to  maintain  justice  among  men. 

The  Great  War  took  the  lives  of  some  eight  mil- 
lion men  in  battle,  and  was  directly  or  indirectly  re- 
sponsible, according  to  the  Danish  Bureau  of  Statis- 
tics, for  at  least  forty  million  deaths.  We,  to  be  sure, 
because  of  our  tardy  entrance,  lost  but  one  in  two 
hundred  of  our  young  men.  But  England  lost  one 
in  four,  and  France  one  in  three.  The  great  increase 
in  the  prevalence  of  many  diseases  will  take  many 
years  to  offset.  The  influenza  epidemic,  due  to  the 
war,  killed  its  millions — very  largely  the  young  and 
strong ;  tuberculosis  has  a  new  hold  all  over  Europe ; 
syphilis  has  been  widely  spread;  famine  and  pesti- 
lence are  not  yet  under  control.  In  the  third  year 
after  the  Armistice,  millions  of  people  are  close  to 
starvation;  many  of  these  must  still  succumb. 

The  suffering  of  this  war  touched  our  people  but 
lightly.  But  it  has  come  close  enough  to  us  to  teach 
us  its  lesson.  The  horrors  of  the  trenches ;  the  heart- 
break of  wives,  sweethearts,  and  mothers ;  the  miseries 
of  the  inhabitants  of  occupied  territory — property 
plundered,  homes  destroyed,  women  violated,  whole 
sections  of  the  population  deported;  the  terror  on 
land  from  the  air,  the  terror  at  sea  from  the  sub- 
marine; the  constant  strain,  the  lack  of  food — it  is 
a  wonder  that  any  human  beings  remained  sane  after 
the  ordeal. 


304  PATRIOTISM 

The  lesson  should  be  seared  into  us.  For  if  another 
great  war  comes  it  is  likely  to  be  far  worse  than  this. 
The  potentialities  of  destructiveness  in  high  explo- 
sives have  been  but  half  revealed.  Whole  cities  could 
be  wiped  out  in  a  night  by  bombs  from  a  fleet  of  giant 
airplanes.  Submarine  warfare  is  capable  of  indefinite 
expansion.  Already  many  new  poison  gases  have 
been  discovered;  and,  in  spite  of  international  agree- 
ments, any  big  war  will  almost  certainly  make 
greater  use  of  this  type  of  weapon.  Tank  warfare, 
warfare  by  means  of  poisons  and  disease-germs — with 
the  experience  of  this  war  to  build  on,  we  should  find 
another  great  war  far  more  terrible  and  involving 
more  and  more  completely  the  entire  population. 

Materially,  Europe  has  thrown  away  the  progress 
of  a  generation.  Scores  of  thousands  of  towns  and 
villages  have  been  wiped  out  of  existence,  fruit-trees 
and  shade-trees  have  been  cut  down  over  great  areas, 
the  soil  has  been  so  torn  up  and  buried  under  the  sub- 
soil as  to  be  in  some  places  irrecoverable.  The  enor- 
mous waste  of  the  world's  none  too  large  supplies  of 
oil,  coal,  copper,  platinum,  and  many  other  natural 
resources,  is  a  permanent  loss  to  mankind.  Much 
of  the  machinery  of  the  world  is  badly  worn,  railways 
are  in  poor  shape,  tools  and  raw  materials  are  every- 
where lacking.  In  addition  to  this  loss  of  capital, 
the  warring  nations  have  incurred  two  hundred  bil- 
lion dollars'  worth  of  debts  which  it  will  take  genera- 
tions of  toil  to  pay  off,  if  indeed  they  can  ever  be  paid. 

Even  we,  who  got,  relatively  speaking,  but  a  taste 
of  the  war,  have  found  the  cost  of  living  practically 
doubled  for  the  time  being.  And  our  expenditures 
for  war,  past  and  prospective,  will  continue  to  eat 
up  far  the  greater  part  of  our  revenue.  According 
to  a  report  of  the  United  States  Bureau  of  Standards 


PEACEABLENESS  305 

for  the  year  ending  June  30,  1920,  the  national  ex- 
penditure for  that  year  was  divided  as  follows :  1  per 
cent  for  public  welfare,  including  agriculture,  de- 
velopment of  natural  resources,  education,  public 
health,  and  labor;  3  per  cent  for  public  works;  3.2 
per  cent  for  the  administration  of  the  government; 
92.8  per  cent  for  war  and  the  maintenance  of  the  mili- 
tary establishment. 

Moreover,  the  loss  is  not  merely  material,  it  is 
moral.  There  comes,  to  be  sure,  a  wave  of  patriotism 
and  courage,  of  fortitude  and  national  solidarity, 
that  for  the  time  being  makes  war  seem  a  moral 
blessing.  But  with  the  relaxing  of  the  strain  there 
follows  the  inevitable  moral  exhaustion,  a  tired  ac- 
quiescence in  selfishness  and  graft,  a  wave  of  restless- 
ness and  crime,  a  great  increase  in  license  of  all  sorts, 
prodigal  expenditure,  wild  frivolity,  and  sensuality. 
Cruelty,  callousness  to  suffering,  and  contempt  of 
life  are,  of  course,  from  the  first  engendered,  as  well 
as  the  spirit  of  animosity  toward  the  nation's 
enemies;  and  these  linger  long  after  peace  is  signed. 
We  have  been  sad  witnesses  in  this  country  to  the 
prevalence  of  prejudice  and  hatred,  directed  not  only 
toward  our  enemies,  but  toward  those  who  have 
differed  from  the  majority  in  their  views.  Minority 
opinion  has  been  persecuted,  and  intellectual  dis- 
honesty has  been  fostered.  It  will  take  us  as  a  people 
some  time  yet  to  quite  recover  from  the  distorting 
effect  of  the  war-passions,  and  see  many  matters  in 
their  true  perspective. 

Finally,  every  war  turns  men's  energies  away  from 
the  other  problems  that  cry  to  be  solved,  diverts  their 
enthusiasms  from  the  undertakings  of  peace  and  the 
reforms  that  are  needed.  We  have  to  pay  for  the 
hatred  stirred  up  against  the  enemy  nation  by  a 


306  PATEIOTISM 

relative  cessation  of  hatred  against  the  evils  in  our 
own  body  politic.  The  enemies  of  reform  know  this ; 
many  wars  have  been  made,  and  many  more  urged,  in 
order  to  distract  attention  from  social  or  political  re- 
forms that  seemed  imminent.  War  is  always  the  occa- 
sion for  the  accentuation  of  abuses  for  which  the 
disengaged  vigilance  of  peace  would  not  have  allowed 
so  free  a  field. 

So  we  shall  refuse  to  believe  that  wars  must  yet 
be.  We  shall  put  all  our  weight  on  the  side  of  a  gen- 
erous friendliness  and  mutual  helpfulness  between  the 
peoples  of  the  earth.  We  shall  sternly  repress  the 
voices  and  the  acts  of  those  who  seek  to  embroil  us 
with  any  of  these  peoples,  and  vigilantly  endeavor  to 
refrain  from  any  policy  that  would  tend  to  arouse 
suspicion  or  fear  among  our  neighbors.  We  shall  fol- 
low William  James's  suggestion  and  find  substitutes 
for  war  to  engage  the  energies  of  our  youth,  in  out- 
door sports  and  achievements,  in  the  adventures  of  a 
fully  democratized  politics  and  industry,  and  in  the 
long  campaign  against  privilege,  inefficiency,  graft, 
and  all  forms  of  private  and  collective  selfishness. 

This  greatest  of  all  wars  needs  to  enlist  us  all.  And 
the  same  spirit  that  led  Nathan  Hale  to  regret  that  he 
had  only  one  life  to  give  to  his  country,  the  spirit 
that  would  make  twenty  million  men  leap  to  arms  if 
our  fair  land  were  invaded,  must  be  kindled  during 
the  long,  drab  years  of  peace,  for  the  routing  out  from 
our  national  life  of  all  that  is  not  worthy  of  the 
long  line  of  heroes  whom  we  honor,  who  paid  the  ulti- 
mate price,  that  government  of  the  people,  by  the  peo- 
ple, and  for  the  people,  should  not  perish  from  the 
earth. 


PEACEABLENESS  307 


SUGGESTED  READINGS 

Monroe's  Message  to  Congress,  Dec.  2,  1823.  (Reprinted  in 
part  in  Foerster  and  Pierson,  and  in  Fulton,  op.  cit.). 

Woodrow  Wilson,  Why  We  are  at  War. 

Theodore  Eoosevelt,  Fear  God  and  Take  Your  Own  Part. 

William  James,  The  Moral  Equivalent  of  War  in  Memories 
and  Studies. 

Jane  Addams,  Newer  Ideals  of  Peace,  Chapters  I,  VIII. 

Durant  Drake,  Problems  of  Conduct,  Chap.  XXIII. 

E.  L.  Godkin,  Peace,  in  Reflections  and  Comments. 

Norman  Angell,  The  Great  Illusion. 

D.  S.  Jordan,  War  and  Waste;  War's  Aftermath. 

H.  R.  Marshall,  War  and  the  Ideal  of  Peace. 

G.  R.  Kirkpatrick,  War,  What  For? 

J.  H.  Holmes,  New  Wars  for  Old. 

R.  W.  Perry,  The  Free  Man  and  the  Soldier. 

M.  R.  Rinehart,  The  Altar  of  Freedom. 

Frederic  Lynch,  The  Christian  in  War  Time. 

Josiah  Royce,  The  Hope  of  the  Great  Community,  Chap.  I. 

Publications  of  the  International  Conciliation  Association. 

Hiram  Bingham,  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  Ill,  p.  721. 


CHAPTER  XXVII 

HANDS  ACROSS  THE  SEAS 

PEACEABLENESS  is  not  enough.  If  the  world  is  to  be 
saved  from  a  recurrence  of  the  tragedy  of  1914,  it  will 
be  by  more  than  a  passive  pacificism  on  our  part.  We 
must  learn  how  to  co-operate  with  the  other  great 
nations  in  the  building  up  of  a  common  world-wide 
civilization  and  the  removing  of  the  causes  that  have 
hitherto  made  human  history  one  long  record  of  wars. 
Just  now  we  are  conscious  that  we  want  no  more  war 
and  intend  to  have  no  more  war.  But  we  remember 
that  in  less  than  a  century  and  a  half  we  have  fought 
six  wars.  We  are  not  likely  to  escape  future  situa- 
tions as  acute.  If  we  seriously  mean  to  root  out  this 
intolerable,  fratricidal  way  of  settling  disputes,  we 
must  do  something  about  it.  And  we  must  set  about 
doing  it  now,  before  the  critical  situation  arises.  We 
have  been  a  leader  in  peace-propaganda ;  that  proved 
in  the  event,  to  be  of  no  value  in  averting  war.  It 
is  now  our  opportunity  and  privilege  to  take  a  leading 
part  in  the  construction  of  a  world-order  that  shall 
put  an  end  forever  to  the  settlement  of  disputes  by 
the  ordeal  of  battle.  f 

In  the  early  days  of \our  national  life  it  was  wise 
for  us  to  remain  aloof/from  the  conflicts  that  perpetu- 
ally ravaged  Europe.  We  were  young  and  weak, 
groping  our  way  Coward  a  new  form  of  society,  and 
separated  by  a  long  and  dangerous  voyage  from  the 
old  world.  We  had  little  intercourse  with  Europe, 

308 


HANDS  ACKOSS  THE  SEAS  309 

her  problems  were  not  ours;  and  we  could  best  serve 
the  world  by  concentrating  our  thought  and  energy 
upon  our  own  difficult  experiment  in  self-government. 
Washington  and  Jefferson  were  right,  then,  in  coun- 
selling their  fellow-countrymen  to  keep  clear  of  Euro- 
pean feuds,  and  to  make  no  "entangling  alliances" 
that  might  drag  us  into  war.  Thus  Lord  Bryce  was 
able  to  write  of  us,  in  The  American  Commonwealth, 
"America  has  lived  in  a  world  of  her  own.  Safe  from 
attack,  safe  even  from  menace,  she  hears  from  afar 
the  warring  cries  of  European  races  and  faiths,  as  the 
gods  of  Epicurus  listened  to  the  murmurs  of  the  un- 
happy earth  spread  out  beneath  their  golden  dwell- 
ings." 

But  the  timeslhave  changed.  The  lesson  of  1917 
has  taught  us  that  we  can  not  remain  isolated  any 
longer  from  the  rest  of  the  world,  if  we  would.  We 
have  an  enormous  interchange  of  commodities,  of 
letters  and  travellers,  of  investments,  with  Europe. 
We  are  now  full-grown.  Our  experiment  has  suc- 
ceeded. One  by  one  the  European  nations  have  adopt- 
ed our  democratic  ideals,  until  now  we  stand  as  one 
member,  the  richest  and  probably  the  strongest,  in 
the  family  of  democratic  nations  that  encircles  the 
globe.  Our  future  is  wrapped  up  with  theirs.  They 
look  to  us  for  aid.  By  the  side  of  Jefferson's  Decla- 
ation  of  Independence  we  must  now  put  Wilson's 
Declaration  of  Interdependence.  The  only  way  now 
to  make  our  democracy  safe  is  to  make  the  world  safe 
for  democracy. 

This  does  not  mean  "entangling  alliances" — or 
promises  to  help  any  one  nation  against  another.  It 
does  mean  a  willingness  to  co-operate  with  the  rest 
of  the  w^orld  in  constructing  a  mechanism  of  world- 
justice  and  peace.  The  experience  through  which  we 


310  PATEIOTISM 

have  passed  in  welding  a  number  of  separate  States 
into  a  single  nation  should  make  us  particularly  use- 
ful in  the  difficult  task  of  establishing  for  the  diverse 
peoples  of  the  earth  a  working  world-policy.  This  is 
the  finest  possible  extension  of  the  ideals  which  ani- 
mated our  Founders.  They  sowed  the  seeds  of  free- 
dom-in-co-operation  on  these  shores;  the  plant  has 
flourished,  and  may  now  be  more  widely  spread. 
"What  was  in  the  writings  of  the  men  who  founded 
America,"  asks  Mr.  Wilson, — "to  serve  the  selfish 
interests  of  America?  Do  you  find  that  in  their  writ- 
ings? No;  to  serve  the  cause  of  humanity,  to  bring 
liberty  to  mankind." 

Many  of  us  had  hoped  that  the  Great  War  would 
definitely  mark  the  end  of  the  period  of  our  self- 
centered  and  self-sufficient  isolation.  As  a  recent 
writer  in  the  Century  Magazine  points  out,  "History 
does  not  tell  a  very  reassuring  tale  of  peoples  that 
have  striven  to  live  apart,  any  more  than  memoirs 
give  a  comforting  recount  of  recluses  .  .  .  No  nation 
can  cut  itself  off  from  the  world  without  stunting  its 
material  and  spiritual  growth."  It  is  not  merely 
out  of  sympathy  and  altruism  that  we  should  stretch 
out  our  hands  across  the  seas,  but  for  our  own  souls' 
good,  and  to  prevent  the  recurrence  of  a  situation  that 
may  otherwise  again  arise,  in  which,  as  in  1917,  we 
shall  be  drawn  against  our  will  into  a  maelstrom 
which  we  have  not  created,  but  which  we  have  done 
nothing  to  avert.  Whether  we  like  it  or  not,  whether 
we  recognize  it  or  not,  we  are  now  interdependent. 
Our  future  is  linked  with  that  of  Europe  and  Asia. 

The  endowment  of  peace-societies,  the  teaching  of 
the  horrors  of  war,  should  be  continued.  But  war  can 
not  be  stopped  by  education  and  propaganda  alone, 
any  more  than  crime  can  be.  "Hating  war  is  quite 


HMDS  ACROSS  THE  SEAS  311 

^unproductive  unless  you  are  thinking  about  its  nature 
and  causes  so  thoroughly  that  you  will  presently  be 
able  to  take  hold  of  it  and  control  it  and  end  it."  We 
must  do  all  we  can,  through  pulpit,  platform,  and 
press,  to  cultivate  a  genuine  international-minded- 
ness — not  as  a  substitute  for  American-mindedness, 
but  as  its  highest  expression.  But  a  mere  subjective 
attitude,  however  generous  and  honorable,  will  not 
suffice,  unless  it  expresses  itself  in  an  objective  order, 
a  world  policy. 

As  a  means  to  that  end,  and  for  their  own  sake,  we 
shall  do  well  to  cultivate  friendly  intercourse  with 
neighboring  peoples — exchange  professorships  and 
student  scholarships,  international  sports,  interna- 
tional professional  organizations,  and  such  world- 
wide societies  as  Clarte  and  Corda  Fratres.  But  in- 
crease of  intercourse  means  increased  occasions  for 
friction.  It  is  by  no  means  true  that  the  more  we  see 
of  people  the  more  we  like  them.  The  contact  of  dis- 
similar social  systems  often  results  in  mutual  anti- 
pathy, ridicule,  or  contempt;  manners  and  morals 
different  from  our  own  affect  us  unpleasantly,  and 
defects  in  alien  customs  tend  to  become  exaggerated 
in  our  memory  and  discourse.  It  is  hopeless  to  expect 
that  we  shall  be  brought  by  commercial,  professional, 
or  personal  intercourse  to  any  widespread  under- 
standing of  and  sympathy  for  the  diverse  standards 
of  foreign  peoples.  Moreover,  at  times  they  will  do  or 
say  what  is  really  unfair  and  unjust.  So,  very  likely, 
shall  we.  Human  nature  being  what  it  is,  we  can  not 
expect  to  avoid  misunderstandings  iand  resentments. 
But  they  need  not  lead  to  war,  and  will  not,  if  we  have 
an  accepted  alternative  means  of  dealing  with  them. 

Hitherto  our  efforts  to  devise  a  mechanism  to  settle 
misunderstandings  have  been  confined  to  arbitration 


&12  PATEIOTISM 

treaties  and  the  reference  of  disputes  to  the  Hague 
Tribunal.  The  first  arbitration-treaty  of  modern 
times  was  the  Jay  Treaty  of  1794,  between  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain;  and  we  had  the  honor  of 
being  the  first  nation  to  submit  a  dispute  to  the  Hague 
Tribunal,  something  over  a  century  later.  At  date  of 
writing,  America  is  party  to  some  thirty  treaties,  in 
which  we  agree  that  all  disputes  between  us  and  these 
other  nations,  "of  every  nature  whatsoever,  to  the 
settlement  of  which  previous  arbitration  treaties  or 
agreements  do  not  apply  in  their  terms  or  are  not 
applied  in  fact,  shall,  when  diplomatic  methods  of 
adjustment  have  failed,  be  referred  for  investigation 
and  report  to  an  international  commission" ;  we  fur- 
ther agree  "not  to  declare  war  or  to  begin  hostilities 
during  such  investigation  and  before  the  report  is 
submitted." 

These  terms  do  not  bind  us  to  refrain  from  declar- 
ing war  with  these  nations,  as  a  last  resort.  But  the 
required  delay  may  be  of  immeasurable  value  in  giv- 
ing hot  heads  time  in  which  to  cool ;  and  the  report  of 
the  international  commission  should  lift  the  dispute 
out  of  the  realm  of  passion  and  prejudice  into  that  of 
reason.  This  will  not  suffice  to  restrain  a  nation  that 
is  bent  on  war.  But  if  our  own  people  and  the  other 
peoples  to  whom  we  are  thus  bound  are  genuinely 
eager  to  maintain  amicable  relations,  this  method 
provides  a  way  for  us  to  preserve  peace  with  self- 
respect. 

We  may  well  be  proud  of  this  pioneer  work  in  con- 
structive statesmanship.  But  time  has  proved  that 
we  must  go  farther.  Roosevelt  pointed  out  with  em- 
phatic reiteration  that  "peace  treaties  and  arbitration 
treaties  unbacked  by  force  are  not  merely  useless 
but  mischievous  in  any  serious  crisis.  .  .  .  The  police- 


HANDS  ACROSS  THE  SEAS  313 

man  must  be  put  back  of  the  judge  in  international 
law,  just  as  he  is  back  of  the  judge  in  municipal  law." 
Such  a  mechanism  must  be  made  operative  that  no 
nation  will  dare  to  make  of  a  treaty  a  "scrap  of  paper" 
when  it  feels  strong  enough  to  repudiate  it.  The 
whole  force  of  the  world  must  stand  back  of  inter- 
national order  and  security.  The  single  nation  should 
no  more  have  to  worry  about  protecting  itself  than 
the  private  individual  in  a  state ;  the  family  of  nations 
should  see  to  it  that  each  of  its  members  is  free  to 
live  its  own  life  undisturbed  and  unintimidated  by 
any  other.  No  nation  must  be  allowed  to  act  as  its 
own  advocate,  judge,  and  inflicter  of  punishment. 
Each  nation  must  have  the  fullest  opportunity  to 
present  its  case ;  but  the  common  opinion  of  mankind 
must  be  the  judge;  and  punishment — or  rather, 
reparation — must  be  required  only  when  the  common 
opinion  of  mankind  demands  it. 

Moreover,  it  is  not  merely  to  prevent  war  that  we 
need  international  organization.  We  need  it  to 
remedy  the  injustices  that  lead  to  war,  to  guide  and 
harmonize  the  increasing  number  of  activities  that  are 
world-wide  in  scope.  Questions  of  the  distribution  of 
shipping,  and  of  raw  material,  the  control  of  disease, 
the  distribution  of  labor,  and  its  status,  and  a  hun- 
dred other  matters,  can  no  longer  be  settled  by  the 
nations  severally.  To  fail  to  co-operate  in  these  mat- 
ters is  not  only  to  lose  in  efficiency,  but  to  invite  mu- 
tual hostilities. 

This  is  not  necessarily  to  say  that  the  existing 
League  of  Nations  is  the  best  means  to  these  ends. 
No  one  can  foresee  at  the  date  of  this  writing  what 
decision  the  American  people  will  come  to  on  this 
point.  But  it  is  to  say  that  some  sort  of  international 
organization  must  replace  the  older  anarchy,  and 


314  PATRIOTISM 

replace  it  soon.  Any  scheme  is  sure  to  have  defects. 
But  "if  we  were  to  postpone  the  setting  up  of  any 
machinery  for  the  conduct  of  human  affairs  until  we 
were  certain  that  it  could  not  possibly  go  wrong,  or 
even  until  all  objections  were  finally  and  completely 
answered,  we  should  never  get  anywhere  and  never 
do  anything." 

We  must  welcome,  then,  all  honest  criticism  of  the 
existing  League,  and  of  any  other  scheme  that  may  be 
proposed  or  attempted.  But  beneath  all  the  pros  and 
cons  of  this  discussion,  we  must  recognize  that  in 
some  way  or  other  we  must  co-operate.  The  era  of 
national  isolations  is  over,  we  are  now  an  integral 
part  of  the  world.  Far  from  being  inconsistent  with 
our  national  spirit  that  we  should  take  our  place  in 
this  world-order,  it  would  be  fatally  inconsistent  that 
we  should  refuse  to  do  so.  When  we  think  of  our 
own  personal  desires  and  interests,  it  must  always  be 
"America  first."  But  when  we  think  of  the  other 
peoples  who  need  our  help  and  co-operation,  it  must 
be  "America  for  the  world." 

We  must  frankly  admit  that  co-operation  may  in- 
volve sacrifice;  sometimes  material  sacrifice,  some- 
times sacrifice  of  prestige  or  supposed  "national 
honor."  It  is,  however,  a  false  conception  of  honor 
that  would  lead  us  to  refuse  the  compromises  inherent 
in  co-operation.  We  must  take  the  lead  in  the  willing- 
ness to  see  the  general  interest  of  mankind  prevail,  if 
there  is  a  conflict,  over  our  national  desires  and  ex- 
pectations. We  must  be  willing  to  abide  loyally  by 
the  decision  of  the  international  tribunal,  even  if  we 
feel  it  to  be  unjust  or  mistaken.  If  it  falls  to  our  lot 
to  make  a  concession  for  the  general  good,  we  must 
be  ready  to  make  it.  There  are  few  precedents  upon 
which  to  base  decisions  in  international  matters,  there 


315 

are  few  judges  not  unconsciously  biased.  Impartial, 
absolutely  just  and  wise  decisions  we  hope  there  will 
be;  but  there  are  bound  to  be  some  that  seem,  and 
perhaps  are,  one-sided,  unfair  to  some  nation,  based 
upon  an  insufficient  grasp  of  the  facts,  or -colored  by 
passion  and  prejudice.  The  essential  thing  is  that 
we  take  these  decisions,  when  they  are  made,  as 
good  sports;  just  as  in  baseball  the  game  cannot  go 
on  unless  both  sides  accept  in  good  humor  the  um- 
pire's decisions. 

The  federation  of  the  world  is  coming.  But  how 
fast?  How  great  a  leap  forward  will  statesmen  dare 
now  to  take?  And,  whatever  plan  they  try  to  put  into 
operation,  will  it  work?  The  answer  to  these  ques- 
tions depends  upon  the  state  of  mind  of  the  people  of 
the  nations  that  are  to  be  thus  federated.  It  is  not 
exclusively  a  problem  for  statesmen  and  students  of 
international  law,  though  their  expert  services  will 
be  needed.  It  is  in  even  greater  degree  a  problem  for 
the  moralists,  the  educators,  the  editors  and  preach- 
ers, and  all  who  can  help  mould  the  minds  of  men. 
For  difficult  as  it  is  going  to  be  to  complete  a  just  and 
workable  system  of  international  law  and  administra- 
tion, that  difficulty  is  as  nothing  to  that  of  persuading 
the  people  of  the  component  nations  to  give  that  loyal 
allegiance  to  this  new  authority  which  alone  can 
transform  it  from  a  paper  plan  into  a  working  system. 
It  should  be  a  matter  of  pride  with  us  to  be  foremost 
in  this  next  step  in  the  world's  progress. 

There  is,  then,  no  duty  more  pressing  than  to 
awaken  our  people  to  the  realization  of  the  imperative 
need  of  world-organization;  not  merely  that  such  an 
organization  may  be  elaborated,  but  that  it  may  be 
loyally  upheld  through  the  long  period  of  readjust- 
ments and  necessary  concessions.  We  must  not  let 


316  PATRIOTISM 

the  world  lapse  into  a  complacent  self-congratulation 
on  the  collapse  of  Teutonic  militarism  and  the  exit  of 
Kaisers  and  kings.  Other  nations  may  yet  become 
powerful,  arrogant,  imperialistic;  the  lessons  of  his- 
tory are  quickly  forgotten  by  the  ambitious  and  the 
proud — and,  indeed,  there  are  examples  of  successful 
aggression  as  striking  as  those  of  defeated  ambition. 
Sources  of  friction  and  bitterness  will  long  persist, 
injustices  will  still  rankle,  thwarted  ambitions  still 
smoulder.  The  growing  complexity  of  international 
relations  will  produce  more  occasions  than  ever  for 
friction.  Nothing  is  more  likely  than  that  this  will 
not  be  the  last  war,  unless  we  set  to  work  with  utmost 
determination  and  create  a  mechanism  which  shall 
make  the  penalties  for  aggression  so  instant  and  cer- 
tain that  it  will  be  universally  recognized  as  suicidal. 
Nothing  is  more  certain  than  that  injustices  will  be 
committed  and  inequities  persist,  unless  we  find  a 
way  to  settle  the  world's  problems  in  peaceful  co- 
operation. 

We  must  combat  by  might  and  main  that  vague 
optimism  that  expects  things  to  come  out  all  right 
if  they  are  left  alone,  that  inertia  that  would  let  the 
peoples  sink  back  into  another  era  of  unchecked  na- 
tionalistic rivalry.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  paci- 
fists, i.  e.,  the  passivists,  who  counted  on  the  efficacy 
of  non-resistance  in  touching  the  hearts  of  the  preda- 
tory and  the  proud,  who  thought  that  words,  and 
paper  treaties,  could  shame  them  or  win  them  to  a 
brotherly  spirit,  have  learned  their  lesson.  Isolated 
instances  to  the  contrary,  human  nature  is,  unhappily, 
such  that  its  fiercer  impulses  cannot  be  tamed  by 
charity  and  patience.  The  ingenuity  for  evil  and  the 
blind  passions  of  men  must  be  counteracted  by  a 
greater  ingenuity  in  devising  the  good  and  a  greater 


HANDS  ACKOSS  THE  SEAS  317 

and  wiser  passion  in  embodying  it.  Effort,  effort  of 
organization,  of  thinking,  of  training,  of  education,  is 
the  inexorable  price  of  progress. 

And  then,  our  plain  duty  is  to  forget  our  fears  and 
suspicions  of  other  nations'  intentions,  our  bitterness 
and  hatred  and  scorn  of  their  wrongdoing,  and  to  cul- 
tivate sympathy  and  understanding.  For  the  former 
mental  attitudes  create  trouble  just  as  surely  as  the 
latter  heal  it.  Our  great  danger  now  is  not  from 
Germany,  or  Japan,  or  any  other  nation,  it  is  from 
ourselves.  We  are  unchastened  by  years  of  suffering, 
we  are  rich,  proud,  unbeaten;  we  want  our  way  in 
everything.  Lately  we  have  been  hearing  all  about 
us  the  cries  for  revenge  of  those  who  would  have  us 
punish  more  severely  an  already  prostrate  enemy, 
keep  our  clutch  on  her  throat,  treat  her  as  her  auto- 
cratic rulers  would  have  treated  us.  In  no  such  way 
can  a  lasting  peace  be  established.  Might  does  not 
make  right  simply  because  it  is  our  might.  The  time 
has  come  to  apply  the  Golden  Rule  in  politics.  What 
we  should  be  thinking  of  is  not  an  enemy's  past  sins, 
but  the  future  of  the  family  of  nations.  It  is  not  a 
weak  surrender  to  return  good  for  evil,  it  is  safe- 
guarding the  future  welfare  of  man. 

Patriotism,  like  charity,  begins  at  home.  But  it 
does  not  end  there.  It  is  rather  a  matter  of  concentric 
circles.  Loyalty  to  one's  family,  or  to  one's  club  or 
college,  does  not  imply  disloyalty  to  the  city  or  vil- 
lage in  which  one  lives;  nor  does  civic  pride  involve 
disloyalty  to  State  or  nation.  Similarly,  love  and 
loyalty  to  our  country  does  not  rightly  require  dis- 
loyalty to  the  great  brotherhood  of  man  which  not 
only  Christianity  but  the  most  elementary  common 
sense  holds  up  to  us  as  the  supreme  object  of  our 
sacrifice  and  service.  Surely  we  must  cultivate  "the 


318  PATRIOTISM 

international  mind" — it  is  our  most  pressing  duty 
just  now,  because  international  sentiment  has  as  yet 
been  so  little  cultivated.  But  to  suppose  that  the 
era  of  international  co-operation  and  loyalty  is  going 
to  lessen  our  national  pride  and  patriotism  is  a  seri- 
ous blunder.  It  is  going  to  clarify  and  purge  them, 
it  is  not  going  to  make  them  less  coercive  or  less  beau- 
tiful. 

Certainly  if  we  fail  to  achieve  a  successful  interna- 
tional organization  in  the  near  future,  the  effort  and 
sacrifice  of  the  War  will  have  been  largely  wasted. 
The  organization  of  an  enduring  peace  is  the  only 
result  which  could  compensate  the  world  for  these 
years  of  destruction  and  death,  and  the  serious  set- 
back to  civilization.  Mr.  Wilson,  who,  whatever  his 
mistakes,  has  been  the  prophet  of  the  new  era,  stated 
clearly  what  was  implied  in  the  slogan,  "The  war  to» 
end  war."  He  declared,  in  an  address  to  the  Senate,, 
on  January  22,  1917,  that  "if  the  peace  presently  to> 
be  made  is  to  endure,  it  must  be  a  peace  made  secure, 
by  the  organized  major  force  of  mankind  ...  It  is 
inconceivable  that  the  people  of  the  United  States 
should  play  no  part  in  that  great  enterprise  ...  It 
is  clear  to  every  man  who  can  think,  that  there  is  in 
this  no  breach  in  either  our  traditions  or  our  policy 
as  a  nation,  but  a  fulfilment  of  all  that  we  have  pro- 
fessed or  striven  for." 

SUGGESTED  READINGS 

Washington's  Farewell  Address. 

W.  H.  Taft  and  W.  J.  Bryan,  Addresses  at  Lake  MoJionk,  1916. 
(Reprinted  in  International  Conciliation,  no.  106). 

Woodrow  Wilson,  The  Hope  of  the  World.  (Addresses,  1918- 
1920). 

A.  Lawrence  Lowell,  H.  Holt  and  others,  in  Towards  an  Endur- 
ing Peace* 


HANDS  ACROSS  THE  SEAS  319 

C.  W.  Eliot,  The  Road  toward  Peace,  Chap.  XVII. 
R.  Goldsmith,  A  League  to  Enforce  Peace. 

H.  N.  Brailsford,  A  League  of  Nations. 
J.  A.  Hobson,  Towards  International  Government. 
Norman  Angell,  America  and  the  New  World  State. 
William  H.  Taft,  The  United  States  and  Peace,  IV. 

D.  H.  Trueblood,  The  Federation  of  the  World. 
L.  Curtis,  A  Commonwealth  of  Nations. 

D.  J.  Hill,  American  World  Policies. 
S.  P.  Duggan,  The  League  of  Nations. 

J.   B.   Moore,  American  Diplomacy,  its  Spirit  and  Achieve- 
ments. 

Raymond  Fosdick,  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  125,  p.  845. 
Pamphlets  of  the  international  Conciliation  Association. 


CHAPTER  XXVIII 

AMERICANIZATION 

WE  have  now  completed  our  survey  of  American 
ideals,  from  the  stout  assertion  of  political  independ- 
ence, of  1776,  to  the  keen  realization  of  interdepend- 
ence, of  1917.  It  remains  to  ask  whether  our  people 
as  a  whole,  or  certain  classes  of  our  people,  are  clearly 
enough  conscious  of  these  ideals ;  and  whether  forces 
should  be  set  at  work  to  accelerate  their  spread,  and 
to  deepen  devotion  to  them.  It  is  that  process  of 
awakening  comprehension  of,  and  loyalty  to,  these 
ideals,  that  we  call  today  Americanization. 

Between  a  seventh  and  an  eighth  of  our  population 
today  are  foreign-born.  Concerning  these  no  sweep- 
ing statement  can  be  made.  They  are  of  all  types, 
of  every  nationality,  of  all  degrees  of  education. 
Among  them  are  some  undesirables,  as  among  the  na- 
tive-born. But  the  great  mass  of  them  are  hard- 
working, honest,  and  loyal.  The  majority  of  them  be- 
come citizens;  and  if  they  do  not,  their  children  are 
citizens  by  birth.  In  general,  these  aliens,  when  they 
arrive,  are  eager  to  learn  our  language,  our  customs, 
our  ideals.  If  some  of  them  become  indifferent  and 
cynical  and  lawless,  it  is  usually  because  we  have 
failed  in  our  duty  to  them. 

It  may  be  questioned,  however,  whether,  on  the 
whole,  the  immigrant  needs  Americanization  more 
than  the  native.  From  many  schools  comes  the  report 
that  the  children  of  immigrants  are  more  eager  and 

320 


AMEKICANIZATION  321 

industrious  and  patriotic  than  the  children  of  the 
older  stock.  From  many  public  libraries  comes  the 
report  that  the  immigrants  and  their  children  read 
the  serious  books  while  the  children  of  the  upper  class 
read  novels  and  detective  stories.  In  some  towns, 
indeed,  the  public  library  does  not  welcome  the  immi- 
grants ;  or  at  least  they  do  not  feel  at  home  there,  and 
have  not  the  boldness  to  intrude.  But  where  an  effort 
is  made  to  show  them  that  they  are  welcome,  they 
often  turn  out  to  be  ardent  readers  of  history,  science, 
poetry,  biography,  and  the  drama. 

The  boys  and  girls  of  American  parentage  are  very 
apt  to  have  a  sense  of  superiority  which  is  not  war- 
ranted. As  a  matter  of  fact,  most  of  them  know  little 
enough  about  the  duties  of  citizenship,  and  think  little 
about  either  the  history  of  our  country  or  its  present 
problems.  They  become  citizens  automatically,  by 
growing  up,  and  are  less  apt  to  be  conscious  of  the 
meaning  of  citizenship  than  the  alien  to  whom  it  is 
granted  as  a  privilege.  We  hear  of  the  danger  of  the 
"foreign  element."  But  on  the  whole,  the  ignorance 
of  the  foreigners  is  no  more  dangerous  than  the 
apathy  of  the  natives.  The  bigger  part  of  the  task  of 
Americanization  is  that  of  Americanizing  our  native 
youth,  keeping  alive  in  them  the  vision  that  fired  their 
fathers,  and  adding  to  it  the  wisdom  that  our  national 
experience  has  brought. 

There  are,  of  course,  special  needs  of  the  immigrant. 
If  he  does  not  speak  or  read  English,  we  must  offer 
him  every  facility  to  learn  the  language  of  his  adopted 
country.  There  is  no  difficulty  here  except  that  of  the 
cost  of  providing  instruction  and  of  finding  spare 
energy  for  learning  on  the  part  of  tired,  hard-working 
men  and  women.  There  is  no  lack  of  desire  to  learn ; 
the  immigrant  has  every  reason  for  learning,  it  is  to 


322  PATRIOTISM 

his  advantage  more  obviously  than  to  ours.  There 
is  no  ne'ed  of  coaxing  him  to  learn ;  and  it  is  a  tactical 
error  to  require  him  to  learn,  by  compulsory  legisla- 
tion. There  is  so  much  forcing  of  the  national  lan- 
guage upon  minority  races  in  Europe  that  many  immi- 
grants instinctively  resent  it ;  it  is  a  sign  of  the  sort 
of  thing  they  have  come  to  America  to  escape.  We 
must  remember  that  a  knowledge  of  English  by  no 
means  ensures  loyalty ;  and  we  must  beware  of  sacri- 
ficing the  end  to  the  means. 

Many  an  immigrant  who  can  not  speak  English  is 
intensely  loyal.  And  if  the  conditions  of  his  life  and 
work  are  such  that  it  is  practically  impossible  for  him 
to  find  the  time  or  energy  to  learn,  we  must  blame  our- 
selves rather  than  him,  and  worry  more  over  a  harsh 
industrial  order  than  over  his  ignorance  of  English. 
His  children  will  learn  it  in  the  public  schools,  and 
will  use  it  in  preference  to  their  parents'  speech.  ( Of 
course  it  goes  without  saying  that  all  the  public 
schools  in  the  land  must  be  conducted  in  English.) 
Meantime,  the  foreign-language  press  can  do,  and  is 
doing,  a  valuable  service  in  teaching  the  non-English- 
reading  aliens  about  America  and  reporting  for  them 
the  events  of  the  day.  With  few  exceptions,  this 
foreign-language  press  has  been  loyal,  and  of  great 
service  in  the  Americanization  process.  To  attempt 
to  censor  it  is  unnecessary,  and  would  be  extremely 
unwise,  undoing  our  best  attempts  to  describe  Amer- 
ica as  the  land  of  liberty,  and  showing  it  to  be  actually 
a  land  of  mistrust  and  repression. 

Every  effort,  also,  should  be  made  to  teach  the 
various  groups  of  immigrants  the  meaning  and  history 
of  our  institutions.  Much  can  be  done  through  the 
trade  unions,  the  churches,  the  public  libraries,  the 
social  settlements,  community  centers,  and  open 


AMERICANIZATION  323 

forums,  and,  of  course,  the  evening  schools.  Often 
valuable  seed  can  be  sown  by  some  holiday  celebra- 
tion, pageant,  or  special  meeting.  Neighborhood  sing- 
ing and  neighborhood  theatres  could  be  utilized  far 
more  than  they  yet  have  been.  The  Boy  Scout  and 
Girl  Scout  movements  reach  not  only  the  children, 
with  their  admirable  discipline,  but  through  the  chil- 
dren bring  often  new  ideas  and  attitudes  to  their 
parents.  In  addition  to  these  diverse  means,  much 
might  be  done  by  the  sending  of  lecturers  to  speak  to 
various  immigrant  groups  in  their  own  halls,  on 
topics  in  which  they  are  interested,  combating  what- 
ever un-American  propaganda  there  may  be  with  open 
argument  and  the  exposition  of  American  principles. 
The  work  with  the  children  is,  of  course,  of  para- 
mount importance.  And  we  should  forget  the  dis- 
tinction between  the  children  of  immigrants  and  the 
children  of  natives.  We  need  a  great  deal  more  for  all 
of  them  than  the  lifeless  "civics"  of  the  typical  school 
course.  Mr.  Arnold  Bennett,  in  his  recent  volume, 
Your  United  States,  writes,  "I  do  positively  think 
that  American  education  does  not  altogether  succeed 
in  the  very  important  business  of  inculcating  public 
spirit  into  young  citizens."  The  statement  is  mod- 
erate ;  in  most  cases  we  ignominiously  fail.  We  must 
teach  every  child,  not  only  the  outward  forms  of  our 
government  and  social  institutions,  but  their  meaning 
and  spirit.  We  should  teach  the  ideals  that  have  been 
wrought  into  the  laws  of  the  land,  and  show  their 
reasonableness.  The  great  body  of  our  laws  are 
plainly  just  and  righteous;  a  code  of  morals  is  exem- 
plified in  them,  and  can  be  taught  without  partisan- 
ship or  bigotry.  Thus  the  laws  and  institutions  of 
America  will  come  to  seem  beneficent  instead  of  re- 
pressive. And  if  there  are  bad  laws,  this  study  of 


324  PATKIOTISM 

reasons  and  principles  will  serve  to  breed  critics  of 
them — the  best  possible  outcome. 

Indeed,  one  of  the  dangers  of  which  we  must  beware 
is  that  of  inculcating  a  complacent  attitude  toward 
our  institutions  as  they  are.  Americanism  should  not 
be  thought  of  as  something  static,  but  as  something 
in  process  of  realization.  The  evils  in  our  present 
political  and  industrial  order  should  be  frankly  faced, 
and  the  youth  of  our  land  encouraged  to  consider 
seriously  and  with  open  mind  the  various  reforms 
proposed.  For  the  danger  ahead  of  us  is  less  that  of 
unrest  than  that  of  fatuous  optimism  and  inertia.  If 
we  look  backward  with  pride  to  our  past  history,  it 
should  be  to  draw  fresh  inspiration  to  help  us  in 
grappling  with  the  problems  of  the  present.  The  alien 
agitator's  ignorance  of  the  worth  of  our  institutions 
is  a  less  menacing  evil  than  the  native  American's 
ignorance  of  their  defects.  Civics  must  be  taught 
not  as  the  description  of  a  finished  political  system, 
but  as  the  description  of  a  changing  set  of  laws  and 
institutions,  which  are  attempting  ever  more  and  more 
adequately  to  embody  certain  fundamental  ideals — 
liberty,  equality,  and  the  like — but  which  need  the 
energies  of  generations  yet  to  perfect. 

There  is  no  present  danger  that  alien  ideals  will 
undermine  our  American  traditions.  The  foreigners 
among  us  are  a  comparatively  small  group ;  and  their 
prestige  is  even  less  than  their  numbers.  Everywhere 
the  older  Americans  have  things  in  their  own  hands. 
Our  danger  is  not  that  of  overthrow  by  hostile  ideals, 
it  is  rather  that  of  decay  from  within.  Indeed,  the 
analysis  of  the  "radical"  vt>te  in  recent  elections 
shows  that  it  has  less  strength  in  the  States  where 
the  immigrant  population  is  largest  than  in  certain 
Western  States  where  fewer  aliens  live.  And  radical- 


AMERICANIZATION  325 

ism  by  no  means  always  goes  with  either  ignorance  or 
disloyalty.  The  real  strength  of  radicalism  today 
lies  in  groups  of  university  graduates,  men  and  wo- 
men who  are  perhaps  more  or  less  impractical  theor- 
ists, but  who  for  the  most  part  are  idealists  and  in- 
tensely devoted  to  the  welfare  of  their  country.  The 
complete  stoppage  of  immigration  would  make  little 
difference  in  the  amount  of  radical  thought.  The  only 
way  to  meet  this  thought  is  to  meet  it ;  to  let  it  express 
itself  openly,  and  to  answer  it  in  earnest  but  good- 
tempered  discussion.  Met  in  that  manner  it  will  be 
a  salutary  ingredient  in  our  national  life,  balancing 
the  inert  standpat-ism  of  other  groups  and  contrib- 
uting its  insights  to  our  counsels. 

The  Freudian  psychologists  have  taught  us  of  the 
danger  to  our  mental  life  from  the  isolation  and  sup- 
pression of  certain  ideas  and  "complexes."  So  in  our 
social  life,  the  danger  lies  in  the  isolation  of  groups, 
whose  ideas  become  more  and  more  set  and  fanatical 
from  lack  of  contact  with  other  currents  of  thought. 
If  there  is  suppression  by  an  unsympathetic  majority, 
we  have  all  the  conditions  of  social  hysteria.  What 
we  need  is  the  application  of  the  "melting-pot"  con- 
cept not  only  to  racial  stocks,  but  to  their  ideas. 
Above  all  things  we  must  beware  of  allowing  a  dom- 
inant majority  to  attempt  to  rubberstamp  our  people 
with  their  particular  beliefs.  We  must  welcome  the 
contributions  of  diverse  races  and  schools  of  thought, 
seeking  to  learn  something  from  each  and  to  weave 
them  all  into  the  texture  of  our  growing  civilization. 

We  have  in  this  country  a  unique  opportunity  to 
profit  by  the  rich  cultural  heritage  of  the  various  im- 
migrant groups.  The  American  of  the  future  is  to  be 
a  composite  photograph,  a  blend  of  these  diverse 
traits.  Each  strain  has  its  values,  has  something  to 


326  PATRIOTISM 

contribute  to  the  symphony  of  American  life.  Profes- 
sor Dewey  has  recently  put  it  thus :  "The  way  to  deal 
with  hyphenism  is  to  welcome  it,  but  to  welcome  it  in 
the  sense  of  extracting  from  each  people  its  special 
good,  so  that  it  shall  surrender  into  a  common  fund 
of  wisdom  and  experience  what  it  especially  has  to 
contribute.  All  these  surrenders  and  contributions 
taken  together  create  the  national  spirit  of  America." 

Mr.  Kabindranath  Tagore  has  sharply  criticized  the 
mania  for  stereotyping  manners  and  ideas  that  he, 
like  many  other  observers,  finds  in  this  country. 
"America  lacks  respect  for  unlikeness,  for  otherness. 
Its  democracy  seeks  to  make  all  men  alike,  to  run 
them  into  one  mold,  to  rob  them  or  shame  them  out  of 
their  picturesqueness  or  diversity.  Americanization 
seems  to  mean  that  when  all  accept  a  certain  formula 
it  is  enough ;  but  old  racial  traits  and  cultural  charac- 
teristics can  not  be  ironed  out  of  humanity.  Nor 
should  they  be.  It  is  not  a  melting-pot  that  is  needed, 
but  a  flower-garden,  where  each  race  may  bloom  and 
add  its  beauty  to  the  commonwealth." 

Above  all  things,  we  must  banish  that  patronizing, 
contemptuous  air  that  so  many  Americans  of  the  older 
stock  assume  toward  the  more  recent  immigrants. 
We  must  sternly  rebuke  the  use  of  those  derisive 
nicknames  that  prolong  antipathy  and  beget  resent- 
ment. If  their  ignorance  and  low  standard  of  living 
irks  us,  the  remedy  is  obviously  to  give  them  educa- 
tion and  better  living  conditions.  If  they  become 
a  menace  to  our  institutions,  or  to  our  standards  of 
living,  it  is  far  less  due  to  their  recalcitrancy  than 
to  our  neglect. 

We  must  remember,  also,  that  the  teaching  the  alien 
receives  is  a  small  part  of  the  influences  that  are  at 
work  upon  him.  In  the  words  of  a  recent  bulletin  of 


AMEEICANIZATION  32T 

the  federal  Department  of  Education,  "The  immi- 
grant is  becoming  either  Americanized  or  anarchized 
by  every  experience  which  he  undergoes,  every  condi- 
tion to  which  he  is  subjected.  Americanization  is  in 
a  measure  the  problem  of  the  school.  But  it  is  also 
a  matter  of  prevention  of  exploitation,  of  good  hous- 
ing, of  clean  milk  for  babies,  of  adequate  wages,  of 
satisfactory  industrial  conditions,  of  the  spirit  of 
neighborliness  between  Americans,  old  and  new. 
Everything  that  touches  the  immigrant's  life  is  an  in- 
strument for  his  Americanization  or  the  reverse." 
In  general  it  may  be  said  that  if  the  immigrant  finds 
himself  well  treated  in  this  country  he  will  be  loyal. 
Kindness,  courtesy,  justice,  opportunity  for  a  normal 
human  life  for  himself  and  his  children — this  is  the 
obvious  way  to  make  the  newcomers  to  these  shores 
patriotic  American  citizens. 

We  must  confess  that  our  record  is  far  from  clean 
in  this  fundamental  respect.  Listen  to  the  words  of 
one  who  is  thoroughly  conversant  with  the  situation — 
not  an  agitator  or  alien  but  a  conservative  and 
earnestly  loyal  American :  "The  immigrant  arrives  at 
the  port  of  entry.  After  passing  his  examination 
(during  which  time  not  a  friendly  word  of  greeting 
is  given  him,  or  a  personal  interest  taken  in  him)  he 
is  turned  loose  upon  the  city,  to  be  met  at  the  gate 
by  cabmen,  porters,  runners,  crooks,  thieves,  and  every 
conceivable  kind  of  exploiter  interested  in  getting  his 
cash  money.  This  is  America's  first  reception  line. 
He  then  meets  our  second  reception  line — the  employ- 
ment agent,  the  private  banker,  and  'steering  agent/ 
who  derive  profit  from  his  labor  before  it  has  even 
become  productive.  When  the  immigrant  actually 
goes  to  work,  he  has  generally  lost  his  money  and  is 
in  debt.  He  then  meets  our  third  American  reception 


328  PATEIOTISM 

line,  the  employer  interested  only  in  his  labor  output, 
and  he  is  treated  accordingly  ...  By  the  time  the 
immigrant  has  shaken  hands  along  these  various  re- 
ception lines  he  feels  he  knows  everybody,  and  he  has 
a  very  definite  idea  of  liberty,  justice,  freedom,  law, 
order,  and  measures  of  happiness,  which  in  no  sense 
accords  with  our  forefathers'  ideal  of  America." 

This  same  writer  describes  an  industrial  plant 
where  immigrants  are  employed.  "His  men  sleep  five 
to  fifteen  in  a  room,  often  on  the  floor  and  in  their 
clothing;  they  have  no  care  and  eat  badly  prepared 
food.  They  crowd  family  houses,  destroying  privacy 
and  morality  .  .  .  One  native-born  American  con- 
trols the  health,  decency,  morality,  and  efficiency  of 
some  8,000  immigrant  workmen,  whose  only  protest  is 
to  move  on,  and  whose  only  future  is  high  enough 
wages  to  return  to  their  home  country.  And  the 
worst  of  it  is  that  men  get  used  to  these  conditions, 
believing  them  to  be  American ;  and  with  this  belief  go 
the  dreams,  the  visions,  and  the  ambitions  which  are 
the  essence  of  good  citizenship.  The  prospective  good 
citizen  is  sacrificed  to  the  demand  for  cheap  labor, 
which  is  a  native-American  demand." 

Conditions  are,  of  course,  by  no  means  always  so 
bad  as  this.  But  they  are  sometimes  as  bad,  and  they 
are  seldom  anywhere  near  what  they  ought  to  be. 
This  is  the  crux  of  the  problem  of  Americanization. 
These  people  are  being  fashioned  not  by  what  we 
preach  to  them,  but  by  what  we  do  to  them.  How 
can  they  believe  in  the  sincerity  of  our  professions 
of  idealism  when  they  find  themselves  exploited  on 
every  hand  and  unable  to  live  a  decent  human  life? 
Actions  speak  louder  than  words ;  and  what  they  see 
is  a  scramble  for  profits,  a  race  in  which  the  clever 
and  the  aggressive  and  the  fortunate  push  their  waj 


AMERICANIZATION  329 

to  a  competence,  while  the  timid  and  conscientious 
get  pushed  to  the  wall.  They  see  honest  and  brave 
men  deported  or  sent  to  prison  for  daring  to  voice 
opinions  contrary  to  the  accepted  creed.  They  find 
themselves  with  little  "effective  liberty/'  little  actual 
equality  of  opportunity;  their  democratic  rights  are 
apt  to  seem  a  mockery.  Only  efficiency  seems  a  genu- 
ine American  ideal — an  efficiency  in  whose  name  they 
are  treated  as  mere  unthinking  "hands."  Often  they 
are  bitterly  disillusioned  in  their  dreams  of  America. 
No  doubt  they  are  often  partly  to  blame.  But  the 
greater  blame  rests  upon  the  rest  of  us,  who  allow 
them  to  be  so  bewildered  and  exploited  and  driven  to 
a  disillusionment  so  rapid  and  so  harsh. 

The  writer  of  a  magazine  article  that  has  appeared 
since  the  above  words  were  set  down  has  so  well  ex- 
pressed the  root  of  the  matter  that  some  sentences 
of  his  are  best  appended:  "You  may  give  the  alien 
evening  schools  and  continuation  schools;  you  may 
teach  his  wife  in  the  home  and  his  daughter  in  the 
factory;  you  may  flood  him  with  reprints  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  and  the  speeches  of  Lin- 
coln; and  when  you  have  finished,  you  will  be  no 
farther  along  the  road  of  winning  his  heart  and  his 
co-operation  than  when  you  began. 

"What  we  have  to  do  is,  therefore,  clear  enough. 
It  is  not,  as  the  now  popular  phrase  has  it,  that  we 
must  Americanize  the  Americans.  It  is  much  more 
than  that.  Before  the  immigrant  can  be  won  over,  we 
must  Americanize  America  herself.  We  must  lift 
American  institutions  and  American  practices  to  the 
high  plane  of  America's  own  traditions.  We  must 
come  to  look  upon  the  immigrant  as  he  is,  a  boon  to 
us  and  an  equal,  instead  of  a  nuisance  and  an  unin- 
vited invader.  And  we  must  somehow  meet  his  ideal 


330  PATRIOTISM 

of  us  and  our  country  by  fashioning  them  in  the 
mould  of  the  ideals  and  the  aspirations  of  the  twen- 
tieth century.  When  we  have  done  this  much,  life 
itself  will  take  care  of  the  future.  For  America  is 
still  very  much  in  the  making,  and  it  will  require 
the  energy  and  the  goodwill  and  the  traditions  of  all 
the  peoples  of  the  earth,  working  together,  to  make  her 
what  she  started  out  to  be,  a  greater  and  a  freer  and 
a  nobler  Europe." 

SUGGESTED  READINGS 

E.  A.  Steiner,  Nationalizing  America. 

Woodrow    Wilson,    Speech    at    Philadelphia,    May    10,    1915. 

(Reprinted  in  Foerster  and  Pierson,  op.  cit.,  p.  178). 
U.  S.  Bureau  of  Education  Bulletin:  America,  Americanism, 

A  m  ericanization. 

Mahoney  and  Herlikey,  First  Steps  in  Americanization. 
Mary  Austin,  The  Young  Woman  Citizen. 
R.  L.  Ashley,  The  New  Civics. 
C.  A.  and  M.  R.  Beard,  American  Citizenship. 
A.  W.  Dunn,  The  Citizen  and  the  Community. 
Moley  and  Cook,  Lessons  in  Democracy. 
W.  H.  Allen,  Universal  Training  for  Citizenship  and  Public 

Service. 

Alissa  Franc,  Use  Your  Government. 
E.  W.  Adams,  A  Community  Civics. 
Frances  A.  Kellor,  Straight  America. 
Winthrop  Talbot,  Americanization. 
Gino  Speranza,  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  125,  p.  263. 
John  Kulamer,  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  125,  p.  416. 


CHAPTER  XXIX 

FAITH  IN  AMERICA 

THIS  volume  has  been  concerned  rather  with  criticism 
and  warning  than  with  eulogy  and  congratulation. 
We  are  far  too  prone  to  brag  of  our  achievements  and 
too  little  disposed  to  acknowledge  our  shortcomings. 
If  the  American  spirit  is  to  find  its  splendid  fulfil- 
ment, it  will  be  not  through  a  complacent  acquies- 
cence in  things  as  they  are,  but  through  our  earnest 
efforts  to  overcome  the  obstacles  that  stand  in  the  way 
and  to  embody  that  spirit  more  completely  in  legisla- 
tion and  practice. 

But  the  picture  must  not  be  drawn  too  dark.  We 
have  not  yet  fully  realized  our  fathers'  dreams,  but, 
on  the  whole,  we  have  done  well.  And  the  signs  of 
the  times  are  full  of  promise.  There  is  more  criticism 
of  our  institutions,  more  fault-finding,  more  clash  of 
interpretation  and  program,  than  ever.  But  that  is 
because  more  people  are  taking  our  historic  ideals 
seriously,  more  people  are  interesting  themselves  in 
their  realization.  We  perceive  the  difficulties  more 
keenly,  we  realize  the  mistakes  that  have  been  made, 
we  are  not  so  blindly  optimistic.  But  we  have  not 
lost  faith.  And  precisely  this  spirit  of  criticism, 
this  chorus  of  proposals,  this  growing  soberness  of 
reflection,  warrants  our  faith  and  pledges  its  fulfil- 
ment. 

Already  the  relative  success  of  our  experiment  in 
self-government  has  had  an  enormous  effect  upon  the 

331 


332  PATRIOTISM 

rest  of  the  world.    And  more  than  ever  we  have  the 
opportunity  to  play  the  role  of  spiritual  as  well  as 
material  leader.     In  the  inspiring  words  of  Koose- 
velt,  "We  are  not  only  custodians  of  the  hopes  of  our 
.    /children,  but  in  a  peculiar  sense  we  are  custodians 
V/     of  the  hope  of  the  world."    "Our  nation  is  that  one 
among  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  which  holds  in  its 
,  hands  the  fate  of  the  coming  years.    We  enjoy  excep- 
tional advantages,  and  are  menaced  by  exceptional 
dangers;  and  all  signs  indicate  that  we  shall  either 
fail  greatly  or  succeed  greatly.    I  firmly  believe  that 
we  shall  succeed;  but  we  must  not  be  foolishly  blind 
to  the  dangers  by  which  we  are  threatened,  for  that  is 
the  way  to  fail." 

Not  only  will  our  future  have  an  influence  far 
beyond  our  geographical  frontiers,  but  millions  more, 
scores  of  millions,  are  coming  to  these  shores,  to  join 
their  fortunes  with  ours.  What  they  are  to  become 
rests  very  largely  with  us  of  the  older  American 
stock.  By  the  middle  of  this  century  we  shall  doubt- 
less have  a  population  of  more  than  a  hundred  and 
fifty  million,  by  its  close  probably  two  hundred  mil- 
lion. And  this  within  the  lifetime  of  people  now  liv- 
ing! What  a  challenge  to  our  idealism!  We  are  a 
very  young  nation,  not  yet  a  hundred  and  fifty  years 
old — a  mere  moment  in  the  history  of  man.  Infinite 
vistas  stretch  before  us.  Why  should  not  our  nation 
endure  for  thousands  of  centuries?  Surely  there 
could  be  no  object  more  worthy  of  our  effort  and  sacri- 
fice than  to  help  shape  the  polity  and  guide  the  devel- 
opment of  this  youthful  giant  among  the  nations. 

Kings  and  Kaisers  have  fallen;  the  battle  against 
political  autocracy,  of  the  sort  that  has  so  long 
plagued  the  earth,  seems  won.  But  the  democracies 
are  still  far  from  safe.  They  will  not  be  safe  from 


FAITH  IN  AMEKICA  333 

one  another  until  'they  have  perfected  an  international 
organization  that  will  secure  justice  and  peace  for  all 
the  world.  They  will  not  be  safe  from  internal  dis- 
ruption until  they  succeed  in  establishing  a  complete 
internal  justice  and  liberty.  One  long  epoch  of  man's 
history  is  over;  it  is  time  to  gird  ourselves  for  the 
next  struggle.  The  War  is  over;  the  War  begins. 

We  must  definitely  realize  that  moral  and  social 
progress  are  not  automatic,  they  come  through  human 
effort.  And  there  are  powerful  forces  making  for  in- 
justice, materialism,  license,  for  decadence  and  dis- 
ruption. It  is  a  perpetually  shifting  battle.  Our 
codes  have  to  become  continually  more  intricate  to 
meet  the  new  methods  of  exploitation,  the  new  forms 
of  inequity,  the  new  follies,  that  are  forever  being 
devised.  We  have  by  no  means  reached  a  point  of 
safety.  The  belief  in  social  progress  has  become  al- 
most a  dogma  with  us,  a  dogma  supported  by  the  ma- 
terial progress  that  nothing  now  apparently,  save  a 
prolonged  world-war,  can  check.  But  moral  and 
social  degeneracy  may  go  hand  in  hand  with  material 
progress,  with  national  power  and  pride.  Thus  it 
may  be  that  our  greatest  dangers  lie  ahead.  Our  fu- 
ture is  still  problematic.  Faith  in  it  we  must  have; 
but  faith  without  works  is  dead. 

It  is  a  salutary  exercise,  then,  to  consider  the  newer 
forms  of  sin,  for  which  the  growing  complexity  of  our 
social  life  has  opened  the  way.  Certain  industrial 
evils,  certain  forms  of  profiteering  and  graft,  certain 
forms  of  commercialized  vice,  that  have  become  al- 
ready widespread,  were  unknown  to  our  founders. 
We  live,  in  our  cities,  less  in  one  another's  eyes  than 
our  fathers  lived.  Our  social  restraints  have  in  some 
ways  become  greatly  relaxed.  We  have  drifted  far 
from  what  Mrs.  Wharton  rather  ironically  calls  the 


334  PATEIOTISM 

Age  of  Innocence — as  recent  a  period  as  the  eighteen 
seventies.  Privilege  has  become  bolder,  sinister  "in- 
terests" more  powerful,  the  congestion  of  wealth  and 
the  wanton  luxury  of  the  rich  more  marked,  poverty 
more  acute,  class  consciousness  more  widespread  and 
bitter. 

But  when  we  look  back  and  remember  that  we  have 
succeeded  in  abolishing  political  tyranny,  and  human 
slavery,  have  risen  above  the  bitter  sectionalism  of 
our  early  years,  have  devised  and  put  into  operation 
a  thousand  ingenious  plans  for  the  checking  of  private 
selfishness  and  the  forwarding  of  the  common  good, 
we  turn  to  the  future  with  confidence.  These  newer 
evils  can  also  be  overcome.  Our  people  are  becoming 
better  and  better  educated ;  the  churches  are  awaking 
more  and  more  to  their  duty  as  teachers  and  fortifiers 
of  our  national  ideals.  The  number  of  voluntary  as- 
sociations devoted  to  the  forwarding  of  specific  causes 
is  increasing  yearly.  Great  potentialities  for  good  lie 
in  professional  associations,  in  trade  unions,  and 
other  organizations  along  vocational  lines.  The  con- 
ception is  gaining  headway  that  the  government  exists 
not  merely  to  protect  the  individual  in  his  rights  but 
positively  to  forward  the  general  welfare.  Our  pio- 
neering is  nearly  done ;  a  larger  and  larger  part  of  our 
surplus  energy  can  be  freed  for  attention  to  the  moral 
and  social  problems  that  confront  us.  The  new  gen- 
eration includes  many  thousands  of  young  men  and 
women  who  are  studying  these  problems  and  are  de- 
termined to  find  solutions. 

In  1910  Mr.  William  Allen  White  published  a  book 
with  the  title,  "The  Old  Order  Changeth."  At  a  date 
so  recent  as  that  it  was  common  to  hold,  with  this 
author,  that  the  days  of  bossism,  of  the  "invisible 
government,"  of  graft  and  corruption,  were  numbered. 


FAITH  IN  AMERICA  335 

The  experiences  of  the  past  few  years  have  shown  us 
that  the  millennium  is  not  yet  at  hand.  But  they 
have  also  shown  the  tremendous  latent  energy  and 
idealism  in  our  people.  The  problem  is,  how  to 
arouse  it,  to  focus  it  upon  the  evils  to  be  cured,  and 
make  it  effective  for  progress. 

Two  things  we  must  cease  to  be  afraid  of.  We  must 
not  be  afraid  of  "unrest,"  of  "agitation,"  of  open  dis- 
cussion and  experiment.  Stagnation,  acquiescence  in 
evil,  apathy,  and  blindness  to  the  defects  in  our  social 
order,  are  worse  than  unrest.  We  cannot  afford  yet 
to  settle  down  and  take  our  ease.  Our  forefathers 
were  not  afraid  of  unrest  when  they  threw  the  tea 
overboard  in  Boston  Harbor,  when  they  resisted  the 
redcoats  at  Lexington  and  Concord.  The  real  cause 
of  revolutions  is  never  the  spirit  of  unrest;  that  is 
secondary.  The  real  cause  is  the  existence  of  injus- 
tice, the  autocratic  and  selfish  rule  of  man  over  man, 
the  poignant  contrast  between  power  and  impotence, 
or  between  wealth  and  poverty.  The  ostrich-policy 
will  not  save  us.  The  danger  is  not  in  wrong  think- 
ing, it  is  in  not  thinking  at  all,  in  letting  things  drift. 

Every  serious  alteration  in  our  political  or  social 
system  has  been  dubbed  un-American,  and  its  spon- 
sors persecuted  as  traitors.  Koger  Williams  was  ban- 
ished from  Massachusetts  for  his  advocacy  of  religious 
liberty,  Garrison  was  dragged  through  the  streets  of 
Boston  for  daring  to  oppose  slavery.  The  secret 
ballot,  the  gold  standard,  the  conservation  policy,  the 
civil  service — these  and  many  other  reforms  were  red 
rags  to  the  self-styled  "true  Americans."  Yet  these 
reforms  have  been  accepted,  as  many  more  will  yet 
be,  as  embodying  better  than  the  older  forms  the  true 
American  spirit. 

The  other  thing  we  must  cease  to  be  afraid  of  is 


336  PATRIOTISM 

spending  money  raised  by  taxes.  We  cannot  evolve 
the  America  of  our  dreams  without  spending  very 
much  greater  sums  than  we  have  yet  been  willing  to 
spend  for  public  education  and  health,  for  reforesta- 
tion and  irrigation,  for  social  insurance  of  many 
sorts.  These  expenditures,  if  wisely  made,  will  far 
more  than  pay  for  themselves  in  dollars  and  cents, 
in  the  increased  efficiency  of  our  people.  They  will 
pay  a  thousandfold  in  heightened  happiness,  and  in 
the  deepened  loyalty  of  a  contented  and  prosperous 
people.  There  is  no  sign  more  hopeful  for  our  future 
than  our  growing  willingness  to  spend  money  in 
ways  that  will  redound  to  the  benefit  of  all  the  people, 
making  their  opportunities  for  self-development  more 
equal  and  securing  for  them  a  more  effective  liberty. 
Another  hopeful  sign  lies  in  our  growing  national 
solidarity.  In  spite  of  our  being  at  first  a  union  of 
originally  separate  States,  and  in  spite  of  our  being 
a  composite  people,  drawn  from  all  the  diverse  races 
of  Europe,  we  have  now  far  more  homogeneity,  far 
less  sectionalism,  than  most  European  countries.  It 
is  often  impossible  from  manner  or  habits  or  point 
of  view  to  tell  whether  a  man  comes  from  Boston  or 
from  San  Francisco.  Nowhere  else  in  the  world  does 
this  homogeneity  hold  true  of  so  large  an  area.  The 
people  of  Maine  and  Florida,  of  Oregon  and  Texas, 
have  confidence  in  one  another,  think  of  one  another 
as  neighbors  and  as  like  themselves.  Washington 
warned  his  countrymen  in  his  Farewell  Address  that 
"every  portion  of  our  country  finds  the  most  com- 
manding motives  for  carefully  guarding  and  preserv- 
ing the  union  of  the  whole."  Such  a  warning  is  no 
longer  necessary;  the  permanence  and  integrity  of 
our  union  is  now  beyond  question.  The  best  thought 


FAITH  IN  AMEEICA  337 

of  our  citizens  from  Maine  to  California  is  at  the 
service  of  a  united  country. 

There  is  no  excuse,  then,  for  pessimism.  We  must 
retain  the  faith  of  our  founders.  They  had  for- 
midable difficulties  to  meet,  but  they  believed  firmly 
in  the  future  of  their  new  people.  Our  recent 
hysteria  over  the  "reds"  is  a  sign  of  lack  of  faith. 
Our  ideals  are  strong  enough  to  stand  shocks.  Our 
future  is  safe  if,  in  Wilson's  words,  "We  be  but  true 
to  ourselves — to  ourselves  as  we  have  wished  to  be 
known  in  the  counsels  of  the  world,  in  the  thought  of 
all  those  who  love  liberty,  justice,  and  right  exalted." 
We  want,  not  a  blind  faith  in  our  country,  but  a 
fighting  faith,  an  open-eyed  faith,  a  faith  that  nerves 
us  to  action.  We  must  look  to  the  future  not  with 
distrust  and  apprehension,  but  with  eager  expectation 
fortified  by  a  determined  resolve.  This  is  the  spirit 
of  the  often-quoted  words  of  our  best-beloved  poet : 

"Our  hearts,  our  hopes,  are  all  with  thee, 
Our  hearts,  our  hopes,  our  prayers,  our  tears, 
Our  faith  triumphant  o'er  our  fears, 
Are  all  with  thee — are  all  with  thee." 

We  can  still  have  unclouded  faith,  in  spite  of  the 
lapse  in  our  practice,  so  long  as  the  American  spirit 
is  taught  to  our  youth.  Our  national  literature  is  a 
literature  shot  through  with  ideals,  our  history  is  a 
record  of  heroic  deeds.  So  long  as  our  schools  and 
our  churches,  our  poets  and  our  orators  hold  up  these 
high  ideals  to  fire  the  hearts  of  our  boys  and  girls, 
we  need  not  fear  for  our  future.  Mr.  Edward  Steiner 
has  touched  the  heart  of  the  matter  when  he  says, 
"I  do  not  believe  that  the  future  of  a  nation  is  written 
in  the  land  it  occupies  or  in  the  language  it  speaks, 


338  PATRIOTISM 

or  in  the  tradition  it  inherits ;  its  future  lies  written 
in  its  will.  .  .  .  What  shall  we  be?  That  which  we 
want  America  to  be,  and  determine  it  to  be.  ...  And 
may  God  grant  that  to  be  an  American  may,  in  the 
future,  mean  something  better  and  more  significant 
than  what  we  now  understand  it  to  mean." 

The  lover  of  his  country  will  dream  of  a  land  far 
more  beautiful  than  that  which  now  is.  The  smoke 
and  grime  of  our  cities  must  go,  the  crowded,  ill- 
smelling  tenements,  the  dreary  unloveliness  of  our 
slums.  City-planning  must  replace  the  careless 
anarchy  of  the  past  Civic  centers,  with  noble  build- 
ings and  ample  open  spaces,  must  be  created.  Beauty, 
which  in  the  old  days  was  but  for  the  few,  shall  here 
be  for  all.  Our  national  parks  and  forests  are  already 
the  wonder  of  the  world.  The  next  generation  must 
see  the  reservation  of  public  playgrounds  in  still  more 
generous  measure.  This  country  is  not  for  the  rich 
alone,  but  for  every  citizen's  pride  and  joy.  We  must 
take  more  interest  in  beautifying  our  countryside, 
our  schools  and  public  buildings,  our  river  fronts  and 
highways.  So  shall  our  country  be  dear  and  grateful 
to  the  outward  eye  as  well  as  to  the  hearts  of  those 
who  love  her. 

"0  beautiful  for  patriot's  dream, 

That  sees  beyond  the  years 
Thine  alabaster  cities  gleam, 

Undimmed  by  human  tears ; 
America !    America ! 

God  shed  His  grace  on  thee, 
And  crown   thy   good  with  brotherhood, 

From  sea  to  shining  sea." 


FAITH  IN  AMERICA  339 

SUGGESTED  HEADINGS 

Lincoln's  Addresses. 

Emerson's  Essay  on  Lincoln,  in  Miscellanies. 

J.   H.   Einley   and   J.    Sullivan,   American  Democracy   from 

Washington  to  Wilson. 
M.  G.  Fulton,  ed.,  Roosevelt's  Writings. 
E.  A.  Steiner,  From  Alien  to  Citizen. 
R.  W.  McLaughlin,  Washington  and  Lincoln. 
Mary  Antin,  The  Promised  Land. 
Jacob  Riis,  The  Making  of  an  American. 
Anon:  Undistinguished  Americans. 
Herbert  Croly,  The  Promise  of  American  Life. 
Henry  Van  Dyke,  Essays  in  Application,  Chap.  I. 
Felix  Adler,  The  World  Crisis  and  its  Meaning,  Chap.  III. 
G.  A.  Turkington,  My  Country. 
J.  C.  Small,  ed.,  Home,  Then  What? 
S.  C.  Bryant,  /  am  an  American. 
John  Dewey,  in  International  Journal  of  Ethics,  vol.  26,  p.  311. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


>%? 


24139 


3   1158  00642  0185 


J£f22£S  .RE.G|ONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    001  034  738  3 


__ 
UNIVERSITY         CALIFORNIA 

LIBRARY 

ANGELES,  CALIF. 


